'/- 


\ 


V 

y 


/ 


THE 


SALVATION  OF    ALL    MEN 

STRICTLY    EXAMINED; 
AND     T  H  E 

ENDLESS      PUNISHME  NT 
Of  those  who  die  impenitent,  argued  and  defend- 

ED  AGAINST  THE  OBJECTIONS  AND  REASONINGS  OF 
THE  LATE 

Rev.  doctor  CHAUNCY,  of  Boston, 

IN    HIS    BOOK    ENTITLED 

*'  The  Salvation  of  All  Men,"  &c. 


By  Jonathan  Edwards,  D.  D. 

Pastor  of  a  Church  inNew-Haven. 


^^  Cojne  now  and  let  us  rsafon  together ^  faith  the  Lord.^' 

Ifai.  I.    i8. 

^^  Is  not  my  way  equal?    Are  not  your  ways  unequal  P^^ 

Ezek.  XVIII.  25. 


N  E  W  .  H  A  V  E  N  : 
Printed    by    A.    MORS  E> 

M,DCC,XC, 


•^  )r*^  )tCl^  'fC^  'fiCl!\  'fC^ 

4*       k.-^        Vi.3^        k,3»(        k.j»(        k.y. 
PREFACE. 

IT  is  to  be  hoped,  that  no  man,  who  believes  a  future 
ftate  of  exifteiice,  will  grudge  the  time  and  pains  which 
are  neceflary  to  obtain  fatisfadory  evidence  concerning  the 
nature  of  that  ftate.  A  miftake  here  may  be  fatal.  If 
the  dodrine  advanced  in  the  following  pages  be  true^  it  is 
a  moft  important,  a  moft  interefting  doctrine.  PJov/cver 
contrary  to  the  wifhes  of  any,  however  mortifying  to  their 
feelings,  however  dreadful,  it  is  by  all  means  necefTary  to 
be  known.  Surely  no  man  would  wifli  ^^  to  flatter  himfelf 
''  in  his  own  eyes,  till  his  iniquity  be  found  to  be  hateful." 
To  a  rational  and  fcriptural  view  of  the  truth  in  this  cafe, 
and  to  a  fatisfaflory  folution  of  the  difficulties  which  have 
been  objected  to  it,  great  attention  and  clofe  examination 
are  neceflary.  And  whether  both  our  duty  and  intereft 
require  us  to  fubje6l  ourfelves  to  the  labour  of  this  atten- 
tion and  examination,  rather  than  to  fit  down  eafy  in  the 
expectation  ^*  of  peace  and  fafety,  till  fudden  deftruclion 
*^  come  upon  us  ;''  no  rational  man  can  heiitate. 

If  any  object  to  the  fize  of  my  book,  my  apologies  are, 
the  fize  of  that  to  which  it  is  intended  as  an  anfwer,  and 
the  extent  and  iaiportance  of  the  fubje6t. 

Doctor.  Chaiincy's  book  is  indeed  anonymous.  Yet, 
as  I  aia  informed,  that  he  and  his  moft  intimate  friends 
have  made  no  fecret  of  the  author's  name;  I  prefume  I 
need  not  apologize  for  ufing  the  fame  nam.e. 

I  AM  fenHble  of  the  prejudice  of  many  againft  contro- 
verTy  on  religious  fubjects.  But  is  it  poiuble  in  all  cafes  to 
avoid  it  r  Whai  is  controverfy  properly  managed,  but  ra- 
tional or  argumentative  difcuilion  ?   And  is  there  to  be  no 

rational  difculiicn  of  the  iubjedts  of  religion  ? Heat  and 

perfonal  inventive  in  fuch  dirquifttions  are  both  impertinent 
and  hurtful.     But  a  cool  difculfion  ©f  the  doctrines  of  reli- 
gion; 


iV 


P    R    E    F    A    C    E. 


gion,  on  the  ground  of  reafon  and  revelation,  is  undoubt- 
edly,one  of  the  beil  means  of  invefrigatJng  truth,  of  dif- 
fufing  the  knowledge  of  it,  and  of  obtaining  and  giving  fa- 
tisfattion  with  regard  to  the  difficulties  which  attend  many- 
moral  and  religious  fubjecls.  This  is  the  mode  of  difcuf- 
iion,  which  I  have  endeavoured  to  obferve  in  the  follow- 
ing pages.  To  point  out  the  inconilflence  and  abfurdity  of 
an  erroneous  fyftem,  and  even  to  fet  them  in  the  moft  gla- 
rino-  licrht  :  is  not  at  all  inconfiftent  with  this  mode  of  dif- 
cuilion.  If  in  any  inftances  I  have  deviated  from  this 
mode,  and  inftead  of  adhering  clofely  to  the  argument, 
have  defcended  to  perfonalities,  and  have  endeavoured  to 
bear  hard  on  Dr.  Chauncy,  otherwife  than  by  fliowing  the 
weaknefs  and  inconilflence  of  his  arguments  ;  for  every 
fach  inllance  I  a{I<:  pardon  of  the  reader,  and  al- 
low it  is  of  ilo  advantage  to  the  caufe  v.hich  I  efpoufe. 
That  caufe  niuft  be  a  bad  one  indeed,  which  (Cannot  be 
fupported  without  the  aid  of  perfonal  reflections. 


New-Haven,  June  29-  A.  D.  17B9. 


^    .  CONTENTS.  f. 

CHAP.  I.  In  -which  the  fundamental  p' maples  of  Do^or 
Chaancy^sfyftemj  concerning  future  punlfjmentj  are 
pointed  out  and  compared  with  each  other*  Page  i. 

.-/ 

Chap.  11.  Whether  the  damned  deferve  any  other  punifh^ 
ment,  than  that  "Uihich  is   conducive   to  their  perfonal  good, 

Page  23. 

Chap.  III.  Whether  the  damned  will  in  faSf  fiiffer  any  0- 
ther  punifjment ,  than  that  which  is  conducive  to  their  perfoju 
al good*  Page    48. 

Chap.  IV.  Containing  an  examination  of  Dr.  Cs  arguments 
io  prove  endkfs  punijhment  inconffient  with  juftice.  i^age  80. 

Chap.  V.  Is  annihilation  the  punijhment  of  the  damned > 

Page  102. 

Chap.  VI.  Theju/iice  of  endkfs  punifhment  conffiir^  in 
.  mifery.  Page  117, 

Chap.  VTI.  Contai?ting  another  view  of  the  que  ft  ion  con-* 
cerning  the  jufHce  of  endlefs  punifrment ,  Page  130. 

Chap.  VIII.  In  which  it  is  inquired,  whether  endlefs  pU' 
nifhment  he  confijtent  with  the  divine goodnefs.  Page  132. 

Chap.  KC.  In  which  is  confulered  Dr,  Cs  argument  from 
Rom.  /.  12,  6-c.    '    "    '  Page  159. 

Chap^  X.  In  which  is  confidered  Dr.  C^s  argument  from. 
Romans  VIII.  19 24.  Page  178. 

Chap,  XI.  Containing  remarks  on  Dr.  C  s  arguments  from 
Col.  I.    19,   20.  Eph.I.  lO;   and  I  Tim.  II.  4.     Page  201. 

Chap.  XII.  Do^or  Cs  arguments  from  Pfal.  VIII.  5,  6. 
Ueh.  II.  6—9.  Phil.  II.  9,  10,  II.  I  Cor.  XV.  24--29, 
and  Rev.  V.  13;   confidered.  Page  216. 

Chap.  XIII.  In  which  Dr.  C^s  fcheme  is  confidered,  with 
•*  a  reference  to  his  ideas  of  human  liberty  and  moral  agency. 

Page  240. 

Chap. 


.^ 


contents; 


Chap.  XIV.  A  reply  to  Dr,  C'san/wers  io  the  argument} 
in  favour  of  endlefs  puntjhment  ^  drawn  from  thofe  texts  which 
declare  the  punlfhrnent  of  the  damned  to  be  tverlafting^  forever  ^ 
forever  and  ever ,  andthefire  of  hell  to  be  unquenchable.  P.  1^6^ 

Chap.  XV.  In  whhh  are  conjidered  Dr,  Cs  anfwers  to 
the  arguments  drawn  fr%m  what  is  faii  concerning  Judas, 
Mark  XIV,  21  ; — from  the  unpardonable  fn  ; — and  from  the 
tendency  of  the  doelrine  of  univerfal  falvation  to  licentioufnefs  ^ 

Page  277* 

Chap.  XVI.  In  which  fome dire 61  arguments  are pr^^pofed^ 
to  prove  the  endlefs  punijhment  of  the  wicked^  P^ge  282'. 

CONCLUSION,  Page  295. 

Appendix f  containing  L  Remarks  on  Bi/hop  Newton,    P .  298* 

//.  Remarks  on  Relly.  P.  305, 

III,  Remarks  on  Pctitpierre,  P.  303. 


UNIVERSAL  SALVATION  EXAMINED,  k( 


CHAP.       L 

Th  which  the  fundamental  principles  of  Dr.  ChauN€Y'x  J}>/^ 
tern  concerning  future  punifhment  are  pointed  out  and 
co7nparedivith  each  other. 

Section    t . 

In  "which  the  fundamental  principles  ^c,  are  pointed  out  6'C* 

BEFORE  we  enter  into  the  confideratlon  of  the  par- 
ticular arguments  of  Dr.  Chaunq^  it  may  be  pro- 
per to  give  feme  account  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
his  fyftem. 

Bjside  the  dodrine  of  the  falvation  of  all  men,  to 
eftablifii  which  is  the  defign  of  his  whole  book  ;  there 
are  feveral  other  do6l:rines,  which  may  be  coniidered  as  fun* 
dame>tal  to  his  fyftem.  He  does  not  deny  all  future  pun- 
ifhment of  the  wicked ;  but  allows  that  they  will  be  pun- 
iflied  according  to  their  demerits,  or  according  to  ftricl 
jufticc.  Thus  he  allows  that  ^'  many  men  will  be  mif- 
^*  erable'  in  the  next  ftate  of  exiftence,  in  proportion  to 
^^  the  moral  depravity  they  have  contraded  in  this* 
*^  There  is  -no  room  for  debate  here*.''  *^  They  muft 
^''  be  u-navoidably  miferable  in  proportion  to  the  number 
'^  and  greatnefs  of  their  vicesf  .'*  ^^  For  the  wages  of 
*•  (in  is  death  ;  but  the  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life  through 
'-  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  :  i.  e.  if  men  continue  the 
''  lervants  of  fin,  the  wages  they  ihall  receive,  before 
^'  the  gift  through  Christ  is  conferred  on  them,  wili 
*^  be  the  fecond  death:|:."  If  fome  men  fufFer  that  pun- 
ifhment which  is  the  wages  of  hn,  they  doubtlel's  fuifer  all 
which  they  deferve.  No  man  deierves  more  than  his  ivtigef^ 
^- In  the  collective  fenfe,  they  will  be  fomented  for  ages 
'^  of  ages;  though  fome  of  them  only  fliould  be  tormented 
'^  through   the  whole  of  that  period;  the  reft  vsriouHy  as 

*'  XX} 
*  -^^^'  9-      t   ^-    lo-     ±  P.   90. 


2  The  fundamental  principles 

*'  to  time,  in  proportion  to  their  deferts\\.^*  "  There 
*'  ihall  be  a  diiTerence  in  the  puniniment  of  wicked  meo, 
*^  according  to  the  difference  there  has  been  in  the  nature 
*^  and  number  of  their  evil  deeds^,^'  He  fpeaks  of  the  wic- 
ked as  liable  *^  to  pofitive  torments  awfully  great  in  de- 
it  gree,  and  long  in  continuance,  in  proportion  to  the  num* 
*^  her  and greatfiefs  of  their  crimes^. '^  ^'  The  pardona- 
*'  blenefs  of  ail  other  lins  and  blafphemies,*'  [except  that 
againft  the  Holy  Ghost],  ^'  hes  in  this,  its  being  pof- 
'*  fible  for   men,  to  efcape  the  torments  of  hell,  though 

''  they  fhould  have  been    guilty  of  thofe  lins. Accord- 

*^  ingly  the  unpardonablenefs  of  the  blafphemy  againft 
"  the  Holy  Ghost,  muft  confifl  in  the  reverfe  of  the 
*'  pardonablenefs  of  other  fms — in  the  impoiiibiiity  of 
their  efcaping  the  torments  of  hell,  who  are  charge- 
able  with  this  Ihi. This  now  being  the  meaning  of 

the  unpardonabnefs  of  blafphemy  againft  the  HoLY 
Ghost,  it  is  cjuite  eafy  to  perceive,  that  even  thefc 
blafphemers,  notwithftanding  the  unpardonablenefs  of 
the  fm  they  have  committed,  may  finally  be  faved 
— For  if  they  are  not  faved  till  after  they  have  palTed 
*^  through  thefe  torments,  they  have  never  been  forgiven*^ 
*^  The  divine  la^jj  has  taken  its  courfe  ;  nor  has  any  inter- 
*^  vening  pardon  prevented  the  full  execution  of  the  threat - 

"^  ened  penalty  on  them. Forgivenefs   ftriclly  and  lit- 

*'  erally  fpeaking  has  not  been  granted  themf." 
*^  This  kind  of  hnners  being  abfolutely  excluded  from  the 
*'  privilege  of  forgivenefs,  mull,  as  has  been  faid,  fuffer 
'*  the  torments  of  another  world,  before  they  can  be  fav- 
*'  ed;,'^ 

In  thefe  paffages  concerning  the  blafphemers  of' 
the  Holy  Ghost,  the  author  plainly  fuppofes,  that 
not  only  thofe  of  that  charafter,  but  all  who  fuffer  the 
torments  of  hell  are  finally  f  ived  without  forgivenefs,  ha- 
ving fatisfied  by  their  own  fufferings  the  utmofl  demands 
of  ftricl  juftice.  He  ^vho  is  delivered  from  further  pun- 
ifhment  in  confequcnce  of  having  fuffered  a  puni/hment 
however  great  in  degree  and  long  in  duration,  but  not 
equal  to  that,  to  wh[ch  he  is  Hable  by  llricT;  jultice,  is  th-e 
fubject  of  forgivenefs.  Jufl  i'o  much  punifhment  is  for- 
given him,    as   is  lacking  to  make  the  punifhmcnt,  which 

he 
?  ^.  307.     §  Page  32c.   *  P,  T^KOy-  351.   t  ^'  V^S>^^^' 
t^.  340 


iC 


Gf  Dr,   Chauncy.  2_' 

he  hath  fuffered,  equal  to  that,  to  which  he  is  liable  by 
flrid:  juflice.  Now  our  author,  in  the  pafTagesjuft  quot- 
ed, fuppofes  that  both  theblafphcmers  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  and 
all  others  who  pafs  through  the  torments  of  hell,  are  finally 
delivered^  not  in  confequence  of  a  punifhment  inferiorin  de- 
gree or  duration,  to  that  which  maybe  inflicted  on  them, 
according  to  ftrict  juftice  ;  as  in  that  cafe  they  would  be 
the  fubjedlsof  forgivenefs  :  but  in  confequence  of  that  pun- 
ifliment,  which  is  according  to  ftrict  juftice,  and  therefore 
they  are  delivered  without  forgivenefs.  He  fays,  ^'  The 
pardonablenefs  of  all  other  fms,  lies  in  the  poffibility,  that 
thofe  who  have  been  guilty  of  them,  fliould  efcape  the  tor- 
ments of  heil/^  Thofe  therefore  who  aftually  pals  through 
the  torments  of  hell  receive  no  forgivenefs;  but  are  liber- 
ated on  the  footing  of  ftri^t  juftice.  If  pardonablenefs, 
or  which  is  the  fame,  a  poiTibility  of  pardon  confift  in  a 
polhbility  of  efcaping  the  torments  of  hell ;  then  a^lual  par- 
don confifts  in  an  r.ftual  efcape  from  thofe  torments'.  Of 
courfe  they  who  do  not  efcape  them,  but  pafs  through 
them,   receive  no  pardon. 

Aga.in:  the  only  obfervation  made  by  Dr.  C.  to  fliov/, 
that  the  blafphemers  of  the  Holy  Ghcft  are  not  forgiven; 
or  the  only  refpect  in  which  he  afferts,  that  they  are 
not  forgiven,  is,  that  they  pafs  through  the  torments 
of  hell.  But  as  this  holds  good  with  regard  to  all 
the  damned,  it  equally  proves,  that  none  of  them  are 
forgiven;  and  that  the  divdne  law  takes  its  courfe  on  them 
all  ;  and  that  no  intervening  pardon  will  ever  prevent 
the  full  execution  of  the  threatened  penalty  on  them  .  — 
Now  if  the  divine  law  take  its  courfe  on  the  damned  ,  and 
the  penalty  threatened  in  the  law  ,  be  fully  executed  on 
them  ;  they  are  undoubtedly  punifhed  according  to  "their 
demerits,  or  according  to  ftricl  juftice;  and  if  after  all, 
they  be  liberated  from  puniflmient ,  they  are  liberated  not 
in  the  way  of  forgivenefs  ,  nor  on  the  footing  of  grace  or 
favour  ;  but  on  the  footing  of  ftrict  juftice  . 

But  if  this  conclufion  concernirig  all  the  damned  be  de- 
nied ;  yet  as  the  blafphemers  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  are  fome 
of  mankind  ,  fome  of  mankind  at  leaft  ,  if  not  ail  the  dam 
ned  ,  Vv'ill  be  faved  on  the  footing  of  fti'id:  juftice ,    and 
without  forgivenefs  . 

The  fame  obfervations  for  fubftance  ,  may  be  made  on. 
the  other  quotations  above.   If  the  davnned  fuifer'*  a  mi- 

ferv 


i|  The  fundamental  Principles 

'*  fery  111  proportion  to  the  number  and  greatnefs  oi* 
*'  their  vices  ;'Mf  ^^they  receive  the  wages  of  fin  ;*'  if  they 
be  "tormented  varioufly  as  to  time ,  in  proportion  to 
''  their  deferts  ;"  and  ' 'according  to  the  difference  there 
**  has  been  in  the  nature  and  number  of  their  evil  deeds"; 
if  they  fufFer  "pofitive  torments  awfully  great  in  degree 
*^  and  long  in  continuance  ,  in  proportion  to  the  number 
*'and  greatnefs  of  their  crimes"  ;  they  are  puniflied  to  the 
utmoil  extent  of  juflice  .  To  punifli  them  any  further 
would  be  exceflive,  injurious  and  opprelTive  .  To  exempt 
them  from  punifhment ,  is  lb  far  from  an  act  of  grace  or 
favour ,  that  it  is  an  acfl  called  for  by  the  moil  rigorous 
juftice  . 

By  thefe  quotations ,  and  by  the  obfervations   on 
them  ,  it  appears  ,  that  our  author  holds  ,  that  the  dam- 
ned fuffer  a  punilliment  properly  and  ftridly  vindictive  , 
and  vindidlive  to  the    highell  degree ,  and   to  the    utmoft 
extent  to  which  vengeance  in  any  juft  government  can  pro- 
ceed .   Indeed  fpeaking   of  the    dellrudion  of   Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  ,  he  plainly  alTerts  a  vindictive  punifhment  both 
of  thofe  cities  ,  and  of  the  damned  ;  he    fays  ,{  that  **  the 
deflrudion  of  thofe  cities  '"  was,  ''for  a  public  example  of 
tlie  divine    vengeance  to  after  ages  .     And  the  fire  of  hell 
is  doubtlefs  called  everlafting  for  the  like  reafon  ;"  i.  e,  be- 
caafe  it  will  lafl,    till  it  fliallhave  accompliflied  the  defign 
of  heaven  in  the  deflruction  of  the   damned  ,  for  a  public 
example  of  the  divine  vengeance.   In  his  Five  Dijfertations 
p.  I  lo,  he  fpeaksof  the  labour,  forrow  and  death  which  men 
fufFer  in  this  world,  as  "  teftimonies  of  God's  vengeance, 
*'  — as  judgments  on  his  part,  and  real  evils  on  theirs;" 
By  vindictive  punifliment  is  meant ,  that  which  is  fufficient 
to  fupport  and  vindicate    the  authority  of  the  divine  law,  or 
which  is  fufHcient  to  fatisfy  the  jufHce  of  God  .  But  no  advo- 
cate for  vindictive  punilhnient  ever  fiippofed,  that  to  vindi- 
cate the  authority  of  the  law  and  to  fatisfy  the  juflice  of  God, 
a  greater  punifliment  is  neceiTary ,  than  is  according  to  ju- 
ftice or  according;  to  the  defert ,   or  the  nature  and  number 
of  the   1ms,  the  vices,  the  crimes  of  the  perfcn  puniihed  ; 
or  that  to  thofe   ends,  a   greater  punifhment  is  neceflbr}", 
than  is  iiiflicled,  when"  the  divine  law  takes  its  courfe  ;''  or 
than  is  implied  "in  the  full  execution  of  the  threatened  pe- 
nalty.'* A  punifhment    greater   than  that  which  anfwers 

thofe 

t   P'   274* 


of  Dr.  Chaunct.  ^ 

ihofe  defcriptions,  would  be  fo  far  from  fatisfying  juftice, 
that  it  would  be  politively  iinjiift  :  it  w^ould  be  fo  far  from 
fupporting    the    authority    of    the    divine    law,    that  it 
would  bring   it   into   contempt  by   violating    it .   If  that 
politive  torment,  whlcli  in  degree  and   continuance  is  ac* 
cording  to    the    deien:    and    the    nature    and    number  of 
the   evil    deeds    of    the  linner,  be    not   fuificient    to    fa- 
tisfy    the   juilice  of   God,  I   wiih  to  be   informed   what 
would  fatisfy   it .  -—  But  Dr .  C  .    himfelf  holds,  thai 
the    punifhment    which   latisfies    the    juftice   of  God,    ij 
vindictive   and    oppcfed  to    that  which  is  difcipiinary  and 
medicinal ;   *'If  the    next  ftate  is    a  ftate    of    punifhment 
'^  not  intended   for   the  cure  of  the  patients  themfelves, 
*'but    to   fatisfy    the   juilice    of    God,    and     give    warn- 
*'  ing  to  others;   it  is   impcfiible    all   men  (liould  be  final- 
*'  ly  faved  f  .'^  So  that  I  am  perfectly  agreed  with  Dr.  C. 
in  his  idea  of  a  vindictive  punifhment,   and  whether  he  do 
not  hold  fuch  punifliment  in  the  utmoft  extent,  I  appeal  to 
every  candid  reader,  who  ihall  have  perufed  the  forecited 
quotations,  or  the  pages  from   which  they  are  taken. 

Yet  Dr.   C.   is  a  great  enemy  to  vindictive  punifhment, 
and  it  is  a   fundamental  principle  of  his  book,   that  the  fu- 
ture punifhment  of  the  wicked    is  difcipiinary  and  intended 
for  the  good,  the  repentance  and  reformation    of  the  pa- 
tients,  and  not  to  fatisfy  the  juftice  of  God.    This  appears 
from  the    quotation  juft  now    made  from  page    nth  ;   and 
by  innumerable  other  paffages,  fome  of  which  I  fli  all  now  re- 
cite.  '^  The  wicked  Oiall be  fent  to  a  place  of  w^eeping,  and 
^^  wailing,  and  gnalliing  of  teeth  ;  not  to  continue  there  al- 
*'  ways,but  till  the  rebellion  of  their  hearts  is  fubdued,  and 
^ '  they  are  wrought  upon  to  become  the  willing  and  obedient 
'^  fubjects  ofGod''*."  Forages  of  ages,  the  wicked  fliallbe 

miferable as  a  mean  to  deftroy   the    enmity    of     their 

hearts  and  make  them  God's  willing  and  obedient  peoplef.'* 
*^  ^^  The  rcit  ^Tthe  wicked]"  ihall  have  their  portion  in  the 
'^  place  of  blacknefs  of  darknefs,  as  a  fuitable  and  neceiTa- 
^'^  ry  difciphne,  in  order  to  their  being  reduced  under mo- 
**  ral  fubjeclion  to  ChristJ.''  '^  The  other  ''[the  wick- 
ed]'' ihall  be  banifhed  to  dwell  in  unfpeakable  torment, 
^'  till  they  repent  of  their  folly,  and  yield  themfelves  up 
'■'■  to  God,  as  his  obedient  fervanis||.''  He  confider* 
^'  the   many   difpenfations,''    through  which  he  fuppofes 

the 

t    P.     ir.        *  P.  220.       t^-22I.      i  P.  221.  P.    |i224. 


.£  Tie  fumifimcntal  pr'mctplcs 

the  wicked  will  pafs,  ''ns  varicufly  adapted  for  the  diicipllne 
offtubborn  and  rebellious  creature s*'."^^  Is  it  not  far  more 
^*  reafoiiable    to    fuppofe,  that   the  miferies   of  the  other 
'^  world  are  a  proper'  ififcipUne,  in  order  to  accomplifh  the 
*^  end''  of  the  recovery  of  the  damned,    ^'  than  that  they 
^'  fhould  be  final  and  vindidtive  only 4- r"     '^   The  confid- 
*'  eration   of  hell,  as    a  purging  fire,  h  that  only,  which 
^^  can  make  the  matter  fit  eafy   on  one-s  mind**.''  With 
approbation  he    quotes  from   Mr.  Hartley   thefe  words; 
^'\  the    doftrine  of  purgatory,  as  now   taught  by  the  Pap- 
*^  ifts,  feems  to  be  a  corruption  of  a  genuine  dod:rine  held 
^*  by  the  antient   futhersj   concerning  a  purifyiner  firef  .'* 
He  confiders  the  mifery  of  hell  as  *^  intended  for  the  good 
*'  of  the  patients  themfelvest  ;"-^:-for  ^^  their  benefit  || ;" 
as   **  a   difcipline    by  which   is  to  be  etfefted  the  /jf/yo;?^// 
*^''\^(3o^  of  wicked  menj.'*     He  fays,   ^'  The    reafon  why 
*^  the  wicked  fuffer  the  torments  of  the  next  ftate_,  is  that 
'^  they  might  be  made  the  willing  people  of  GoD.f 
Ag  this  is  his  idea  of  the  nature  and  end  of  the  future  pun- 
iihment   of  the  w;cked,  he  often    rejects    with  abhorrence 
the  idea,  that  they  are  to  be   punifhed   for  any  other  end 
exclufive  of  their  own  perfonal  good.     What   he  fays   in 
P'    3-5>    implies,    that   unlefs     v.e    believe,     that     the 
future     punifiiment    of     the      wicked     is     intended  for 
their  perfonal   good,   -we  muft   believe,  that    *'   the  cha- 
*^  racier  of  God,  as  the  Father  of  mercies,  and  the  God 
'^  of  pity,  is   limited  to  this   world  only;"  and  that  he  is 
not    the  *  ^  fame  o;ood  beino;   in  the  other  world,    that  he 

<^  is  in    this;"« That  on  that    fuppoiition,   *f    we  fhall 

*^  fay  that  of  our  father  in  heaven,  which  we  cannot  fup- 
^'  pole  of  any  father  on  earth,  till  we  have  firil  divefted 
*^  him  of  the  heart  of  a  father^.''  And  in  page  nth, 
before  quoted,  he  abfoiotely  rejects  all  puniihment  v/hich 
is  not  difciplinary. 

But  how   thefe  two  fundamental  parts  of  Dr.  C's  fyf- 
tem  can   be  confiftent   with  each   other,  is  difficult   to   be 
conceived.      Is  that  punifliment  which  is  according  to  the 
deferts  of  the  finner ;   that  which  in  dv^gree  and  coiitinu- 
gnce    is    according    to    the  natm-e  and  number  of  his  evil 
deeds  ;   in  which  the  divine  lav/  takes  its  courfe  upon  him,    . 
*?;nci  in  which  the  penalty  threatened  in  the  \d.\v  is  fully  ex- 
ecuted 
='P.   309.  -I-  P.  322*     *P.  S24-      t^-  324-      t  P'  325- 
}!P,;:^26.         i^'.  328,     ^  P.  343-     i  ^"'-  3-7- 


of  Dr.  Chauncy;  f 

ecuted :  is  this  pmiifliment  no  more  than  a  iuitable  and 
hecefTary  difciphne  to  the  fmner  ;  necelTary  '"  to  reduce  him 
to  a  moral  fubjeclion  to  Christ  ;'^  necelTary  *^to  his  per- 
'^  fonalgood/'  '^  his  benefit/'  &c?  If  fo,  then  that  puniih- 
ment  which  is  according  to  ftri^t  jultice  and  "^  latislies  the 
^^  juflice  of  God/'  and  that  vvhich  is  a  mere  merciful 
and  beneficial  difcipline,  are  one  and  the  fame.  The 
damned  flnner  fulFers  no  more  puniihment,  than  is  ne* 
teflary  for  his  good^  nor  can  without  injury  and  opprssili' 
on  be  made  to  fufter  more  :  and  all  ground  of  dlltinction 
between  vindictive  and  difciplinary  punifhnient  entirety 
vanifhes.  But  if  any  man  fhould  avow  this  fentiment,  that 
fuch  punifhnient  Oxily,  as  is  n-eceil'ary  and  conducive  tn» 
the  fmner's  perfonal  good,  can  coniiitently  with  juftice 
be  inflicted ;  I  beg  leave  to  refer  him  to  the  next  chap- 
ter, in  which    the  fubject  is  conlidered  at  large. 

In  the  mean  time,  it  may  be  proper  to  obferve,  that 
Dr.  C.  could  not  coniiflently  adopt  the  fentiment  jull  men- 
tioned; becaufe  he  in  page  nth  before  quoted,  diilin- 
guiihes  exprefly  between  that  punifhnient,  which  is  in- 
tended for  the  cure  of  the  patients,  and  that  which  is  in- 
tended to  fatisfy  the  juflice  of  God  ;  and  afferts  that  the 
latter  is  inconfiftent  with  the  falvation  of  all  men.  Hi-s 
words  are,  ^^  If  the  next  (late  is  a  (late  of  punifhm.ent, 
'^  not   intended    for  the    cure  of  the  patients  themfelves, 

*'  but  to  fatisfy  the  juftice  of  God 'tis   impofTible  all 

*^  men  fhould  be  finally  faved."  On  this  notable  pafTage,  I 
obferve,  i.  That  Dr.  C.  here,  as  every  where  elfe  through 
his  book,  diftinguifhes  between  a  vind'idive  and  difciplina- 
ry punifhipent  ;  or  between  that  punifhment  which  is  con—' 
ducive  to  the  finner's  good,  and  that  which  fiitisfics  divine 
juftice.  It  cannot  therefore  be  faid,  that  according  to  Dr. 
C.  a  punifhment  conducive  to  the  fmner's  good,  is  ail  th«.t 

can  in  itrid  juftice  be  inflifted  on  him, 2.   He  afferts^ 

that  if  future  punifhment  be  intended  to  fatisfy  divine  juft-^ 
ice,  it  is  impoflibie  all  men  fhould  be  faved.  Yet  he 
himfelf  in  holding,  that  the  wricked  will  be  puni/hed  ac- 
cording to  their  deferts,  and  in  degree  and  continuance  ac- 
cording to  the  nature  and  number  of  their  liris,  crimed 
and  evil  deeds ;  and  that  the  divine  law  will  take  its 
eourfe  on  them,  the  whole  threatened  penalty  be  mKiCted^ 
and  they  never  be  forgiven  ;  holds  that  puniihment,  which 
entirely   fatisiies  the  juftice  ©f  GoD.       Therefore,    as  he 

holds 


S  The  fundamental  Principles 

alfo  holds  that  fuch  future  punifliment  as  fatlsfies  the 
jullice  of  God,  is  inconfiftent  with  the  falvation  of  all  men  ; 
to  be  confiftent,  he  muft  give  up  the  doctrine  of  the  falva- 
tion of  all  men,  to  prove  which,  he  wrote  his  whole  book. 

Another  fundamental  principle  of  Dr.  C's  book,  is, 
that  all  men,  both  thofe  who  drc  laved  immediately  from 
this  life,  and  thofe  who  are  faved  after  they  have  fufFered 
the  pains  of  hell ;   are  faved  by  the  mere  mercy ^  compajfpon, 

grace  ot  favour  of  God,  through  Cmrist. He  allows*, 

that  the  Apoftle's  Doctrine  of  juflification  ftands  ^'  upon 
"  the  foot  of  grace  through  Christ,"  and  ^'  that  man- 
'^  kind   have  univerfally  fmned    and  confequently  cannot 

<"'  be  juftified  upon  any  claim  founded  on  mere  la-w.^' 

"  The  gift  by  Christ  takes  rife  from  the  many  offences, 
*^  which  mankind  commit  in  their  own  perions,  and  fin-* 
'■^  ally  terminates  in  oppofition  to  the  power  and  demerit 
*'  of  them  all,  in  their  being  refliored,  not  limply  to  life, 
'^  but  to  reign  in  it  forever f."  ^'  As  mankind  univerfal- 
*'  ly  are  fubjected  to  damage  through  the  lapfe  of  Adam  ; 
*'  fo  they  fhall  as  univerfally  be  delivered  from  Ity  through 
<^  the  gift  by  Christ  J."  '*■  The  gift  on  CHRisT^spart^— < 
"^  ought  to  be  taken  in  its  abounding  fenfe||.''  *^  The 
''  plain  truth  is,  final  everlafcing  falvaticn  is  abfolutely 
^^  the  free  gift  of  God  to  ^//men,  through  Jesus  Christ 
*^  — he  has  abfolutely  and  unconditionally  determined,  of 
''  his  rich  mercy y  through  the  intervening  mediation  of 
*'  his  fon  Jesus  Christ  ;  that  all  men,  the  whole  race  of 
*'  lapfed  Adam  ihall  reign  in  life ^."  He  fpeaks  of  God 
23  exercifmg  fity,  tender  compajfon  7\Xid>.  grace,  towards 
the  damned  ;  and  fpeaking  of  the  difciplinary  punifliment  of 
the  damned,  he  fays,  "  that  God,  in  the  other  world  as 
*'  well  as  this,  muft  be  difpofed  to  make  it  evident,  that  h^ 
*'  is  a  being  oi  boundlefs  andinexhauflihle goodnefs.^^^  He 
*'  fpeaks  of  the  doctrine  of  univer fallal vation,  asthegofpel 
*'  plan  of  mercy  extenfively  benevolent ;  and  a  wonderful  defigu 
*'of  mercy**''  as  '*  the  fcripture  fcheme  of  mercy,''  and  of 
the  vileft  of  the  human  race  as  '^  the  obje-flsof  wfrry§§." 
He  quotes!  with  approbation,  from  Mr.  Whifton,  ''That 
**  there  may  be  in  the  utmoft  bozucls  of  the  divine  com^ 
**  paffion,  another  time  of  trial  allotted"  to  the  damned. 
'*  in  which  many  or  all  of  them  may  be  ur/cd,  by  the  irf- 
"  nite  indulgence  and  kve  of  their  Creator."  Our 

*  P^^^  43.      t  P.  S^'       t  P'  62.       II  P.  75-     ^  -•'-  ^"^f^- 
^^326.     **  360.     §§  365.   i  405. 


efDr,  Chaungy  ^ 

Our  author  abundantly  declares  alfo,  that  this  rich 
mercy  J  this  free  gift  y  this  tender  compaffion  and  grace,  this 
infinite  indulgence  and  love  of  their  Creator,  this  bomidlefs 
and  inexhatiftihle  goodnefs^  in  the  falvation  of  all  men,  is 
exercifed  through  Christ  only,  and /or  his  fake.  *'  Je- 
*^  sus  Christ  is  the  perfon  through  whom  and  upon  ivhofe 
*^  account y  happinefs  is  attainable  by  any  of  the  human 
*^  race^i.''  ^^  The  obedience  of  Christ,  and  eminent— 
*'  \y  his  obedience  unto  death ,  is  the  ground  or  reafon,  up-- 
'^  on  which  it  hath  pleafed  GoD  to  make  happinefs  at- 
tainable by  any  of  the  human  race*/'  *^  It  was  with  a 
*^  view  to  the  obedience  and  death  of  Christ,  upon  this 
*'  account,  upon  this  ground,  for  this  reafon,  that  God  was 
'^  pleafed  to  make  the  gofpel  promife  of  a  glorious  im- 
^'  mortality  to  the  fons  ofmenf.'*  **  Christ  died  not 
*^  for  a  feled;  number  of  men  only,  but  for  mankind  uni^ 
*^  verfiilly  and  without  exception  or  limitationt." 

Now,  how  can  this  part  of  Dr.  C's  fyftem  be  recon- 
ciled with  that  part,  in  which  lie  holds,  that  all  the  damned 
will  be  punifned  according  to  their  deferts  ?  Can  thofe  who 
are  punifhed  according  to  their  deferts,  after  that  be  faved 
on  the  foot  of  grace  through  Christ  I  Can  thofe  who  are 
punifhed  according  to  the  nature  and  num.ber  of  their  evil 
deeds ;  in  degree  and  continuance,  in  proportion  to  the 
number  and  greatnefs  of  their  crimes  ;  in  whole  punifli- 
ment  the  divine  law  takes  its  courfe,  and  the  threatened 
penalty  is  fully  executed  :  can  thefe  perfons  be  faved  by  agift  P 
by  a  gift  taken  in  the  abounding  fenfe  >  by  the  free  gift  o/cod 
through  Chrif}  >  by  rich  mercy  ?  hy pity,  tender  cotnpaj/ion  and 
grace?  by  mercy  extenfroely  benevolent  ?  by  a  wotiderful  de- 
fign  o^  mercy  Phy  boundlefs  and  inexhaujiible goodnefs  P  by  thff 
utmoft  bowels'of  the  divine  cornpaffion?  by  the  infinite  induU 
gence  and  love  of  their  Creator  ?  Is  the  man  who  by  his 
crimes  has,  according  to  law,  expofedhimfelf  to  the  pillory,  or 
tobecropt  and  branded,  and  on  whom  the  law  has  tak- 
en its  courfe,  andthe  threatened  penalty  has  been  fully  exe*- 
cuted ;  is  he  after  all  delivered  from  further  fuffering  by 
grace,  hy pity,  by  tender  compaffion,  by  indulgence  and  love ^ 
by  the  utmoft  bowels  of  compaffion  ? — No  ;  he  has  a  right 
on  the  foot  oi  mere  law,  and  of  ^/;.?  mnft  rigorous  jujtice,  to 
fubfequent  impunity,  with  refpect  to  the  crime  or  crimeii, 
for  which  he  has  been  thus  punlflied  ;  and  to  tell  liim  after 

h- 

•■  P.    17,        *  P.     19.        f   P.    10,        %  P.   2®. 

C 


to  The  fundamental  Principles 

}\Q  is  thus  puniflied,  that  he  is  now  releafed  by  gracc^ 
^yy  pity,  by  utinoft  compaffion,  by  indulgence  and  love, 
vvould  be  the  grolTeft  infult. 

Again  ;  how  can  thofe  who  have  been  puniflied  accor-* 
ding  to  their  dei'erts,  be  faved //;roz/^/;  Christ,  oy  on  his 
account  P  How  can  the  obedience  and  death  of  Christ  be 
the  ground  or  reajhn  of  their  falvation  ?  Having  fuffered  the 
full  penalty  threatened  in  the  lav/,  they  have  a  right  to 
demand  future  impunity,  on  account  of  their  ovv^i  fulFer- 
:ngs.  What  need  then  have  they  of  Christ,  of  his  obe- 
dience and  death,  or  of  his  mediatory  intervention,  to  be 
brought  into  the  account?  Dr.  C.  fpeaks  of  the  "  de— 
^'  liverance"  or  ^'the  redemption  which  Christ  has  pur* 
chafed"  for  all  men;^.  But  what  need  is  there,  that 
Christ  iliouid  purchafe  deliverance  for  thofe,  who  puf- 
chafe  it  for  thenifclves,  by  their  own  perfcnal  fufferings  ? 
Nay,  what  juftice  would  there  be  in  refuiing  deliverance 
10  a  man,  unlcfs  it  be  purchafedfor  him  by  another,  when 
he  hath  liilly  purchafed  it  for  himfelf  ?  What  if  the  per- 
Ton  before  delcribed  to  have  fuuered  fome  corporal  pun- 
^ihment  according  to  the  fb'idnefs  of  law,  fliould  be 
told  at  his  releafe,  that  he  is  delivered  from  further  pun-« 
ilhment,  not  on  account  of  his  own  fufferings  ;  but  on  ac- 
count of  fom.e  other  perfon  ?  on  the  ground^  and  for  the 
reafon  of  the  obedience  or  merit  of  that  other  perfon? 
Alight  he  not  with  jufl:  indignation  reply  ;  Wherein  hath 
tiiat  other  perfon  afforded  nie  any  relief?  I  have  fuff-« 
ered  all  that  could  be  inflicled  on  me  confidently  with 
1/iw  and  jufhice  ;.  and  let  the  merit  of  that' other  perfon  be 
what  it  may,  I  thank  him  for  nothing  :  his  merit  hath 
benefited  me  nothing.  As  little  benefit  from  ChrisT 
does  he  derive  towards  his  deliverance,  who  fuffers  ac^ 
cording  to  his  deferts  •  and  with  as  little  propriety  can  it 
be  faid,  that  he  is  redeemed  or  delivered  through  Christ 
or  on  his  account. 

On  the  whole,  Dr.  C's  fcheme  comes  to  this;  That 
not  bare  goodnefs,  but  that  8;oodnefs,  which  is  boundlefs 
and  inexhauitible  ;  not  bare  compafhon  but  the  utmoft 
bowels  of  the  divine  ccmpailion ;  not  bare  indulgence 
and  love,  but  the  infinite  indulc-ence  and  love  of  our  ere- 
ator;  will  grant  to  his  creatures  of  mankind,  juft  fo  much 
relief  from  mjfery,  as  they  are  entitled  to,  by  the  molt 
rigorous  jullice  .  Nox 

*  ^-   ISI^   154- : 


<y/Z)r.  Chauncv.  II 

Nor  did  Dr.  C.  fall  into  thefe  inconfiilences^  by  mere 
inattention  ;  he  was  driven  to  them  by  dire  neceihty,  pro- 
vided it  was  neceiTary  for  him, to  adopt  his  favorite  doc  • 
trine  of  the  falvation  of  all  men  .  Every  one  of  the  fore- 
mentioned  principles  is  eifential  to  his  fyftem,  and  can 
by  no   means  be  fpared . 

I  .  Tpiat  the  damned  are  punifhed  according  to  tKeir 
deferts,  is  manifeflly  elTential  to  his  fyftem .  For  if  in 
ages  of  ages  they  do  not  fuffer  a  pmiiihment  which  is  ac- 
cording to  their  deferfs,  they  do  not  fuller  that  which 
might  julHy  be  inflicled  upon  them;  or,  which  is  the 
fame  thing,  that  pnniihment  vvdiich  is  denounced  in  the  di- 
vine law  :  and  according  both  to  juftice  and  the  divine  law, 
the  damned  might  be  made  to  funer  a  greater  punilhment, 
than  that  v.hich  is  for  ages  of  ages ;  or  than  the  longeP: 
punilhment,  which  any  of  them  vvili  in  fact  fuffer.  But  a^, 
no  body  pretends  there  is  any  gre',iter  punifnment  threat- 
ened in  the  law,  or  in  any  part  of  fcripture,  than  thai 
which  in  fcriptural  language  is  faid  to  be  for  ever  and  ever, 
which  D  ,  C  ,  fuppofes  to  be  for  ages  of  ages  only,  and  to  bt- 
actually  fuffered  by  fome  men  at  leait ;  he  was  neceifitateci 
to  hold,  that  fome  fuffer  the  utmoft  punifnment  threaten- 
ed in  the  law  ,and  of  courfe  the  utmolt  which  they  deferve. 

Beside;  if  he  had  allowed,  that  the  damned  do  no^ 
fuffer  fo  long  a  punilhment,  as  they  deferve,  or  as  is  threat 
ened  in  the  lav,^ ;  he  might  have  been  aiked,  how  much 
longer  tliat  punilhment  is,  which  is  threatened  in  the  law, 
than  that  which  they  av5tuaily  fufter .  And  the  anfwer 
mult  have  been,  either  that  it  is  a  longer  temporary 
punilhment ;  or  that  it  is  an  endlefs  punifliment.  Bu-: 
which  ever  anfwer  ffiouid  have  been  given,  inexplicable 
difljculties  would  have  followed .  If  he  fliould  have  an- 
fwered;  that  the  puniltmient  threatened  in  the  lavv^, 
and  which  the  finner  juftly  deferves,  is  a  longer  tem- 
porary punilhment,  than  that  which  the  damned  actually 
fuffer,  he  might  have  been  challenged,  to  point  it  out, 
as  contained  in  the  law,  or  in  any  part  of  Icriptnre  : 
and  it  is  prefumed,  that  he  would  not  have  been  able 
to    do  it . 

But  if  he  fnould  have  anfwered,  that  the  punifb- 
ment  threatened  in  the  law,  and  v.  hich  the  finner  juftly 
deferves,  is  an  endlefs  punilhment,  he  muft  at  once  have 
given  up  all   arguments   in  favour  of  univerfal  falvatio:-", 

an.i 


it  The  fundamental  Pvinples 

and  againft  endlefs  puniHiment,  drawn  from  the  jufltce 
of  God  .  Surely  the  jultice  of  God  does  not  oppofe  that 
-w^hich  is  juft,  and  which  the  fmner  deferves;  or  that 
which  the  juft  law  of  God  threatens .  He  muft  alfo  have 
acknowledged  the  infinite  evil  of  fin,  which  feems  to 
have  been  a  mofl  grievous  eye-fore  to  him .  For  no-, 
thing  more  is  meant  by  the  infinite  evil  of  fin,  than  that 
on  the  account  of  lin,  the  fmner  deferves  an  endlefs 
punifiiment . 

Again;  Dr .  C .  could  not  alTert,  that  the  damned  do 
not  fufFer  all  the  puniihment,  which  they  defer ve,,  without 
contradidling  apparently  at  leaft,  many  clear  and  pofi- 
tive  declarations  of  fcripture:  fuch  as,  That  god  will 
rerider  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds,  and  ac- 
cording as  his  work  Ihall  be;  That  every  one  fliall 
receive  according  to  the  things  done  in  the  body;  That 
the  wicked  fhall  not  come  out  of  the  place  of  punilh- 
pent,  till  they  fliall  have  paid  the  uttermoft  farthing,  and 
the  very  laft  mite;  That  he  fhall  have  judgment  with- 
out  mercy,    that     fhewed  no    mercy,  &c .  &c . 

2  .  It  was  equally  nec^lTary,  that  he  fliould  hold  that  the 
punifhm<?nt  of  the  damned  is  a  difcipline,  neceflary  and 
liappily  conducive    to  lead    them    to   repentance,   and  to 

promote  th^ir  good  . Other  wife  he  mufl  have  holden, 

that  future  punifliment  is  vindi6tive  and  intended 
to  fatisfy  the  juftice.  of  goD;  which  kind  of  pu- 
nifliment is,  according  to  his  own  account, inconfiftent  with 
the  falvation  of  all  menf  .  And  other  wife  he  mufl  have 
given  up  all  his  arguments  from  the  divine  goodnefs, 
mercy,  compafTion  and  grace,  which  are  the  chief  argu- 
ments, on  which  he'  himfelf  depended  mofl,  for  the  fupport 
of  his  caufe,  and  which  are  the  mofl  popular,  and  the  mofl 
perfuafive  to  the  majority  of  his  readers .  Otherwife  too, 
he  could  not  have  pretended,  thAt  his  fcheme  of  uni- 
verfal  ialvation  is  a  fcheme  of  fuch  benevolence,  of  fuch 
boundlefs  and  ihexhauflible  goodnefs,  of  fuch  tender  com- 
palfion  and  grace,  of  fuch  infinite  indulgence  and  love  : 
and  mtifi;  have  given  up  all  the  principal  texts  of  fcrip- 
ture, from  which  he  argues  univerfal  falv^ation;  as  they 
are  inconfiflent  with  the  idea,  that  the  damned  will  be 
finally  admitted  to    happinefs,    having  preyioufly  fuffered 


ObjeSIions  .coy^fidered,  ,  13 

the  whole    punifliment,    which  they    deferve . 

-^ .  Nor  could  he  make  out  his  fcheine  of  univerfal 
falvation,  unlels  he  held,  that  all  men  are  faved  in  the 
way  of  mere  grace  and  favour  through  Christ.  If  he 
had  not  holden  this,  what  I  obferved  under  the  lafl 
article,  would  be  obfervable  under  this  too,  that  he  muft 
have  given  up  all  arguments  drawn  from  the  divine 
goodnefs ;  and  alio  all  arguments  dravv-n  from  what  ths 
icriptures  fay  of  the  extent  of  Christ's  redemption; 
particularly  thofe  texts  from  which  D .  C .  chiefly  ar- 
gues in  fupport  of  his  fcheme  .  Every  one  of  thofe  texts 
holds  forth  that  all  who  are  faved,  are  laved  by  grace, 
■ihj'ough  Christ  .  He  muft  alfo  have  given  up  all  argu- 
ments from  fcripture .  The  fcripture  knows  of  no  fal- 
vation,  but  that  which  is  founded  on  the  mere  favour  of 
God  forgiving  the  fms  of  men,  according  to  the  richer 
of  his  grace,  and  juftifying  them  freely  by  his  grace, 
through   the  redemption   that  is  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Thus  Dr.  C.  was  compelled  by  necellity  to  alTociate 
in  his  fcheme,  principles  which  will  wage  eternal  war 
with  each  other . 

Section  ii  . 

In  which  obj colons  to  the  frecedhig  reafon'ing  are  cor:- 
fidered, 

I.  IF  to  fome  part  of  the  preceding  reafoning,  it 
fhould  be  objefted,  that  though  the  fmner,  having 
fuffered  a  puniiliment  according  to  his  deferts,  has  a 
right  oru  the  footing  of  juftice  to  fubfequent  impunity, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  delivered  from  further  pun'tfh- 
merit  by  grace,  or  through  Christ;  yet,  as  he  has  no 
right  pn  the  footing  of  juftice,  to  the  pofitive  happinefs 
of  heaven,  he  may  be  admitted  to  this,  entirely  by 
grace,  and  through  Christ:  This  would  by  no  means 
be  fufficient  to  reconcile  the  forementioned  inconfiften- 
ces ;  as   may   appear  by   the  following    obfervations . 

I.  That  Dr.  C.  afTerts,  not  only  that  all  men  will 
be  admitted  to  the  pofitive  happincfs  of  heaven,  by  free 
grace ;  but  that  they  will  in  the  fame  way  he  delivered 
from   the  pains  of   hell:  As     in   thefe    inftances;* '^T'-^^* 

f  P.  25,  26. 


14  Chje^hns   confider^d. 

S'Jfl  through  the  one  w.'?«.  Jesus  Chr7$T,  takes  rife 
i'rcm  the  many  fms  which  men  commit,  in  the  courfe 
«5f  their  lives,  and  proceeds  in  oppoiition  to  the  power 
ami  demerit  of  them  all,  fo  as  finally  to  terminate  in 
jtiftificaticn,  juftificaticn  including  in  it  deliverance  ffom 
Jiti,  as  well  2.s  front  death  ;  their  being  made  righteous,  as 
%-en  as  reigning  in  life,'^  ^^JBy  the  righteoufnefs  of 
the  one  man  Jesus  Christ  the  oppofite  advantageous 
gift  is  come  upon  all  men,  which  delivers  thern  from 
d^athy  to  reign  in  lifie  for  ever  /^'^**rt  feeme.d  agreeable 
to  the  infinite  wifdom  and  grace  of  God,  that  this  da^ 
mage  JJjould  he  repaired^  and  mankind  refcued  from  the 
Jlctte  "yf  (in  and  death  ^-•-  by  the  obedience  of  one  man.'' 
*^  *  Salvation  from  ivrath  is  one  thing  effentially 
Inclndfid  in  that  jultification  which  is  the  rcfuk  of  true 
faith  /'  He  fperiks  'to  the  fame  effect  in  many  other  plac- 
es ,  Indeed  b!e  never  gives  the  leaffc  hint  implying,  that 
he  imagined,  that  the  introdu(5lion  of  the  finner  to 
the  "jiofitive  happinefs  't>i  heaven  is  more  an  aft  of  grace , 
thr'n  his  deliverance  from  'the  pains  of  hell :  but  all  that 
he  f^ys  on  the  lubject,  implies  the  contrary.  Nor  do  I 
ilate  this  objeclion,  becaufe  I  find  it  in  his  book;  but  left 
fome  of  his  admirers  fiiould  flart  it ,  and  fiiould  fuppofe , 
t-*Kit -it -relieves   the  difficulties  before  prelTed   upon  hhn , 

As  Dr.  C.  allows, that  the  deliverance  offmners  from 
ihe  pains  of  hell.,  in  all  inftances ,  is  as  really  an  aft  of 
^rjice,  and  as  really  through  Christ  ,  as  their  admifiion 
to  the  jo3^s  of  heaven;  fo  the  fcriptnres  are  very  clear 
^as 'to  the  fame  matter.  Gal.  III.  13.  ^^^Christ  hath 
*^  j*cdeemed  us  from    the    curfe  of  the  law,  being  made  a 

curfe  for  us.''     Rom.   V.   9.   "  We  lliall  be  faved/;*07;2 
th    through  him.''       i    Thef.    I.    10.      ^'  Jesus 


f<  <? 


wrai 


**  which  delivered  lit  from  the  wrath  to  come.^^  And  par-* 
fen  dj-  forgivexiefs,  which  is  a  difcharge  from  deferved 
ptinifliTnent,  is,  in  its  very  nature,  an  aft  of  grace,  and  is, 
?.h 'fcripture,  ahvays  fpoken  of  as  fuch,  and  as  difpenfed 
through  ChTRi  ST  only.  Nor  is  any  thing  more  clear  from 
the  fcriptnres,  than  that  every  perfon,  who  is  faved,  is 
fuved  in  the  way  oi  forgivencfs. 

2.     There    would  be  no  propriety   in  faying,    that   a 

perfon  who  hasfuftered  all  the  punifhment  which  he.  juflly 

tiefervcs,  who  is  on  the. footing  of  law  and  juftice  releafed 

from  all  further  puniihment,  and  is  placed  in  a  liate  of  medi- 

%  P,    27.        **  P.   30.     *  P-  37  ocrity 


OhjeSflons   Conjldersi  %g- 

ccrlty,  in  which  he  is  the  fabjecl  of  no  mifeiy  ;  is  admit-* 
ted  to  the  pofitive  happinefs  of  heaven,  by  rnercyy  by  fity 
or  coinpaffion  :  much  lefs  by  ^*  tender  corapaflion"  and 
*^  loonderful  mercy,"  and  by  the  ^'  utmojl  bowels  of  the 
'*  divine  compailion."  A  being  who  has  by  his  perfonal 
fiifFerings,  fatisfied  the  law,  ftands  as  right  with  refpeft  ts 
that  law,  as  if  he  had  never  tranfgrefTed  it :  or  as  another 
perfon,  who  retains  his  original  innocence.  Now,  do'es 
any  man  fuppofe,  that  Gabriel  was  admitted  to  celeilial 
happinefs,  in  the  way  of  mercy,  J>iiy,  or  tender    coinpaff.'-^ 

on  F' ''That  he  was  admitted  to  it  in  the  exercife  of  o-ooc-> 

nefs,  is  granted.  The  fame  may  be  faidof  his  creation^ 
and  of  the  creation  of  every  being  rational  and  ariimaL 
But  no  being  is  created  ozit  of  crmipajjlon.  With  no  incre 
propriety  can  it  be  faid,  that  an  innocent  being,  cr,  which 
is  the  fame  as  to  the  prefent  purpofe,  that  a  being  v/li?? 
has  indeed  tranfgrelfeci,  but  has  in  his  ovv'n  perfon  mad^ 
fatisfaftion  for  his  tranfgrelfion,  and  on  that  footing  is  de-* 
iivered  from  all  puniihment  and  mifery,  is  admitted  to 
high  pofitive  happinefs,  by  mercy,  pity  or  compafTion^ 
And  how  much  mere  im.properly  are  the  ftrong  epithets 
.  ufed  by  Dr.  C.  applied  in  tiiis  cafe  ?  Is  it  an  inftance  'of 
tender  pity,  o^  wonderful  vA^tcy,  of  the  utmofi  bowels  of  the 
DIVINE  compaifio;!,  to  admit  to  the  happinefs  of  heaven.^ 
an  innocent  creature,  or  one  who,  in  his  own  perfon.^ 
ftands  perfectly  right  with  re fpe 61  to  the  .divine  law,  and  is 
net  the  fubjeclof  any  mifery  ? 

3 .  To  grant  that  thofe  who  fhall  ha«ve  fuffered  a  pun«* 
ilhment  accordino;  to  their  deferts,  will  on  the  footino-  of 
juftice,  be  delivered  from  further  wrath  or  puniihment^ 
and  yet  to  infift  that  their  admilfion  to  high  pofitive  hap-« 
pinefs,  is  truly  and  properly  an  ad  of  grace;  would  b^ 
only  to'  raife  a  difpute  ccncerning  the  proper  meaning 
of  the  word  grace,  and  at  the  fame  time  to  grant,  that  the 
deUverance  of  the  hnner  from  wrath,  is  no  fruit  of  for*- 
givenefs,  or  q{  grace,  even  in  the  very  fenfe  in  which  the 
objector  ufes  the  v/ord  grace.  It  is  no  ad  of  favour,  x^ 
ofgoodnejs,  as  diftinguifhed  from  ju/fice,  to  deUver  a  pef- 
Ton  from  wrath,  who  is  innocent,  or  vv'ho  in  his  own  per- 
fon has  fatisfied  the  jaw,  and  therefore  now  ftands  right 
with  refped  to  it.  Eat  the  idea  of  delivering  a  fmner 
from  v/rath,  without  forgivenefs,  and  without  grace,  i.s 
as  foreign  from  the  fcripture.s,  us  that  of  the  admilfion  oi 

Si  iiimer 


l6  Qhjc&hns    Confidcrcd. 

d  finner,  without  grace,  to  the  pofitive  joys  of  heaveii. 

11.  Perhaps  it  may  be  objeded  to  part  of  the  pre -> 
ceding  feclion,  that  by  punifliment  '^  in  proportion  to  their 
*'  deferts,'^  and  *'  according  to  their  evil  deeds/'  &:c. 
Dr.  C.  meant  not  a  puniihment  e^«^/ to  ftridl  juftice,  or 
fatisfaflory  to  the  juflice  of  God  ;  but  one  in  which  a  due  pro- 
portion to  the  deferts  of  the  various  perfons,  with  relpe6t 
to  one  another,  who  are  the  fubjecls  of  the  punifhment,  isob- 
ferved. — But  to  this  it  may  be  anfwered,  Dr.  C.  doubtlefs 
Tiieant  to  ufe  the  exprelhons,  ^'  in  proportion  to  their  de- 
'^  ferts,"  "  according  to  their  evil  deeds,"  &:c.  in  the 
fame  fenfe  in  v/hich  the  fcriptures  fay,'*  according  to  their 
''  works'' ;  '^  according  to  the  fruit  of  their  doings,''  he. 
This  is  manifett  not  only  by  the  fnnilarity  of  the  expref-* 
fions,  but  by  his  own  reference  to  thofe  phrafes  in  fcrip— 
tnre,  as  in  the  following  pail'ages,  "•'*  Which  is  plainly  in- 
**  confiftent  with  that  difFerence  the  fcripture  often  declares 
**^  there  fhall  be,  in  the  puniiliment  of  wicked  men,  ac— 
^*  cording  to  the  difference  there  has  been  in  the  nature 
*'  and  number  of  their  evil  deeds*."  "  Under  the  prof-" 
*^  pedl  of  being  condemned  by  the  righteous  Judge  of  all 
*'  the  earth — to  poiitive  torments  awfully  great  in  degree, 
*'  and  long  in  continuance,  in  proportion  to  the  number 
^'  andgreatnefs  of  their  crimesf ."  Here  he  undoubtedly 
refers  to  thofe  palTages  in  which  the  fcriptures  aflure  us, 
that  the  judge  **  will  render  to  every  man  according  to 
''  his  deeds  ;"  *'  according  as  his  work  fliall  be,"  &c. 
Now  thefe  phrafes  of  fcripture  are  clearly  explained  to  us, 
by  thofe  reprefentations,  in  which  the  punifliment  of  the 
wicked  is  illuftrated  by  the  imprifonment  of  a  debtor,  till 
he  fhall  have  paid  the  uttermoft  farthing,  the  very  laft  mite, 
^'c.  and  by  the  pailages,  in  which  it  is  declared,  that  the 
wicked  fliall  have  judgr.ient  '-^vithout  mercy  ;  that  God  will 
not  pity,  nor/par^  ihem  Szc.  Whereas,  if  they  fuffer  lefs 
than  they  deferve  according  to  flridt  juftice  ;  fo  far  they 
are  the  objects  of  mercy  and  pity  ;  fo  far  G'^d  does  (pare 
them;  fo  far  they  have  mercy  mixed  with  jndgmeni.  Nor 
fen  it  be  faid,  that  they  pay  the  uttermoji  farthing  of  the 
debt. 

Again;  Dr.  C.  allows,  that  the  v/i eked  will  in  the' 
fecond  death  receive  the  wages  of  fin.  But  the  wao-esof 
:i  man  are  not  merely  a  part,  or  a  certain  pro|5ortion  of 
what  he  deferves,  or  has  earned,  but  the  v/hole.  N» 
"P.    ilo .  +P .    350.  niaii 


tilyjeclicns  Conjidered,  if 

man  who  has  faithfully  done  the  work,  which  he  contra^ed 
to  do  for  ten  pounds,  will  allow,  that  five  pounds  are  his 
wages  for  that  w^ork. 

III.  It  may  alfo  be  objecled  to  a  part  of  the  former  fedtion, 
that  though  ^^  the  law  ihall  have  its  courfe"  on  fome 
men,  and  *^  the  full  penalty  threatened  in  the  lav/,  be  ex- 
ecuted on  them  V'*  ftill  this  does  not  imply  a  punishment 
equal  or  fatisfadtd^y  to  flricl  juftice  ;  as  the  divine  law 
itfelf  does  not,  ftjr  ever  did  tlu-eaten  all  that  punifhment, 
which  is  deferved  according  to  ftrift  juflice  :  and  therefore 
though  the  damned  fhall  fuifer  all  which  is  threatened  in 
the  law,  yet  they  will  not  fuffer  a  vindictive  punifliment,  a 
puni/liment  \vhich  ihall  *' fatisfy  the  juftice  of  GoD." — Con.- 
cerning  this  objection  it  may  be  obferved  ; 

1.  That  by  the  law  is  meant,  to  ufe  Dr.  C's  own 
words,  '^  the  moral  la^w,"  ^^  the  law  of  nature,  the  law 
'^  oireafor.,  which  is  the  law  of  God  :"  and  to  fay,  that 
this  law  does  not  threaten  a  penalty  adequate  to  the  de- 
mands of  juftice,  is  to  fay,  that  it  does  not  threaten  a  pen- 
alty, adequate  to  the  demands  of  reafon.  If  fo,  it  is  not 
the  law  of  reafon ;  which  is  contrary  to  the  fuppofition. 
Therefore  to  fay,  that  the  law  of  reafon  does  not  threaten 
a  penalty  adequate  to  the  demands  of  juftice,  is  a  real  con- 
tradiction . 

2.  That  Dr.  C.  neither  does  nor  could  confiftently 
make  this  objedion  ;  becaufe  if  the  objedion  were  juft,  men 
might  be  juftified,  '^  on  a  claim  founded  on  mere  law.^* 
On  the  principle  of  the  objection,  the  law  threatens  a  pun— 
ilhment  far  lefs  than  we  deferve  ;  and  a  man  having  fuf-^ 
fered  this  punilhment,  may  be  juftified  on  the  fonndatioit- 
of  mere  law  :  the  lav/  would  be  fatisfied,  and  the  man 
would  ftand  right  with  refped  to  it,  nor  would  it  have  any 
further -claim  on  him,  in  the  way  of  punilhment,  more 
than  on  a  perfon  who  had  never  tranfgrelTed.  Therefore 
lie  thenceforward  obeying  the  lav/,  might  as  truly  be  jufti-^ 
fied  on  the  foot  of  mere  law,  as  if  he  had  rendered  the  fame 
obedience,  without  ever  tranrgreiung. 

But  Dr.  C.  holds,  ^^  that  mankind  unlverfally  have 
^'  fmned,  and  confequently  cannot  be  juftifieJ  upon  a 
'*  claim  founded  on  mere  laiv*  ,^^  And  f  that  ^'  the  whole 
^^  v/orld  had  become  guilty  before  God,  and  were  there- 
'*  fere    incapable  of  being  juftified  upon  the  foot  of  mere! 


D 


1%  ObjeSilons  Confiderett 

law."  That  all  men  are  |  ^^  incapable  of  juftification  up> 
'^  on  the  foot  of  mere  law,  as  having  become  guilty  before 
'^  God."  To  the  fame  efFecl  in  various  other  paflages. 
So  that  according  to  Dr.  C.  if  future  punijQiment  be  in- 
tended to  fatisfy  the  lawy  it  is  equally  impoffible,  that  all 
men  fliould  be  faved,  as  it  is  on  the  fuppolition,  that  fu- 
ture punifhment  is  intended  to  {"ztisfyju/Ilce* 

3.  Dr.  C.  ALLOWS,  that  a  man  having  fufFered  the 
penalty  of  the  law,  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  the  objed  of  for- 
givenefs.  ''  ||  If  they  are  tiot  faved,  till  after  they  have 
^'  pafTed  through  thefe  torments,  they  have    never   been 

^^  forgiven The  divine  law  has  taken  its  courfe  ;  nor 

^'  has  any  intervening  pardon  prevented  the  full  execu- 
^'  tion  of  the  threatened  penalty  on  them..  Forgivenelg 
*'  ftridly  and  literally  fpeaking,  has  not  been  granted  to 
'^  them."  But  if  thofe  who  fuiFer  the  penalty  of  the  law^ 
are  not,  in  their  fubfequent  exemption  from  pvmifhment, 
the  objecls  of  forgivenefa,  they  fuffer  all  they  deferve.  So 
far  as  they  are  exempted  from  deferved  punifhment,  thty 
are  forgiven :  forgivenefs  means  nothing  elfe  than  an  ex- 
emption from  deferved  punifhment. 

4.  Dr.  C.  fays,  that  Adam  (and  for  the  fame  reafoa 
doubtlefs  men  in  general)  ^'  mufl  have  rendered  himfelf 
*'  obnoxious  to  the  righteous  refentment  of  his  God  and 
^^  King,  had  he  expreffed  a  difregard  to  any  command*" 
of  the  moral  law,  the  law  of  which  the  Doctor  is  fpeaking 
in  that  pafTage.  But  the  righteous  refentment  of  God  for 
tranfgrellion  is  a  jufl  punifhment  of  tranfgreffion ;  and  a 
juft  punifhment  is  any  puniOiment,  which  is  not  unjuft. 
And  it  is  impolfible  that  Adam  fhould  be  obnoxious  to  fuch 
a  punifhment,  if  the  law,  the  moil:  ftri6l  rule  of  God's 
proceedings  with  his  creatures,  had  not  threatened  it.— 
Thus  Dr.  C.  himfelf  grants,  that  the  punifhment  threat- 
ened in  the  law  is  the  fame  which  is  deferved  according  to 
ftridt  juftice. 

The  Doftor  every  where  holds,  that  '^  the  law  of  God 
is  a  perfe(ft:  rule  of  righteoufnefsf ."  But  if  the  law  do  not 
threaten  all  the  punifhment  vdiich  isjuftlv  deferved  by  fin^ 
it  is  no  more  truly  a  perfect  rule  of  righteoufnefs,  than  the 

gofpelis.     Again;   *'  Is  the  law  that  rule  of  right, 

**  which  God  knows  to  be  the  meafure  of  men^s  duty  to 

him 
%  P,   36.      y  P'   336.         *5  DiJ/l'rtathaf  P.  ^^, 
$  Particularly   12    Senmns    P.  36. 


Obje^iofiS    Coujiderei.  ip 

*'  him,  and  of  what  is  fit  he  fhould  do  for,  or  inflift  upon 
*'  them,  as  they  are  either  obedient,  or  difobedient? 
*'  There  is,  without  all  doubt,  fuch  a  rule  of  men's  duty 
*^  towards  God,  and  of  God's  conduct  towards  men,  in 
'^  a  way  of  reward  or  puniiiiment,  according  to  their 
*^  works. 4; "There  could  fcarcely  be  a  more  explicit  con- 
cefhon,  that  the  divine  law  threatens  all  that  punifhment, 
which  is  acording  to  juflice.  It  is  declared  to  be,  not 
only  the  rule  of  right,  but  the  meafure  of  what  is  fit  in  pu- 
nifhment,  as  well  as  of  duty.  Indeed  Dr.  C.  never  once, 
fo  far  as  I  have  noticed,  fuggefts  the  idea,  that  the  di- 
vine law  does  not  threaten  ail  that  punifhment,  which  is 
defer ved  by  fm. 

5.  According  to  this  objecHon,  the  moral  law  is  a 
difpenfation  of  grace ,  as  truly  as  the  gofpel .  But  how 
does  this  accord  with  the  fcripture  ?  That  declares ,  that 
^*the  lain)  was  given  by  Moles,  but  grace  and  truth,'' 
or  the  gracious  truth,  "came  by  Jesus  Christ  ;'' 
Joh.  I.  17.  — "If  they  which  are  of  the  law  be  heirs, 
faith  is  made  void ,  and  the  promife  made  of  none  efFed. 

Becaufe   the  law  worketh  wrath. Therefore   it  is   of 

faith,  that  it  might  be  by  ^r^<r^ ;"  Rom.  IV.  14.  — 
**The  fbing  of  death  is  fm,  and  the  ftrength  of  fm  is  the 

law;   ''iCor.  XV.    56. As    in    the    objection     now 

"under  confideration ,  the  law  is  fuppofed  to  be  as  really 
a  difpenfation  of  grace,  as  the  gofpel;  we  may  fay. 
The  ftrength  of  fin  is  the  go/pel,  as  truly  as,  The  ftrength 
of  lin  is  the  law . Befide  ;  if  the  law  be  a  difpenfa- 
tion of  grace,  how  can  it  be  faid  to  be  the  ftrength  of 
fin?  It  threatens  apart  only  of  the  puniihrnent  deferved 
by  fin ;  and  therefore  it  neither  points  out,  how  ftrong 
fin  is,  to  bring  into  condemnation,  nor  does  it  give  to  fin 
its  proper  force  to  terrify  and  torment  the  finner,  by 
exhibiting  the  whole  punifhment  deferved  by  fin .  On 
the  ground  of  this  objection,  the  ftrength  of  fin  con- 
fifts  in  the   rule  of  ftri6l  juftice,  not  in  the  law . 

6.  The  apcftle  tells  us,  that  "by  the  law  is  the  know- 
ledge of  fin .''  But  the  knovv  ledge  of  the  evil  or  de- 
merit of  fin  is  obtained  by  the  knowledge  of  the 
threatening  of  the  law  only .  If  the  law  do  not  threaten 
all   that  punifhment,  which  fin  deferves,  we    know  not 

by  the   law,  what  lin  deferves,  or   how  evil  it  is.-^ 

And  if  we  know   not  this  by  the  law,  neither    do  we 

ktievr 
Ibid,  P.   39* 


ao  ChjeiUflons  Conjidered* 

Jcnow  it  by  any  other  part  of  fcripture,  nor  by  any  other 
means  whatever .  Nor  do  we  know  our  own  demerit,  nor  our 
own  proper  characters  as  fmners ;  nor  are  we  in  any 
capacity  to  judge  concerning  our  obhgation  to  gratitude 
for  the  redemption  of  Christ,  or  for  falvation  through 
him;  nor  have  we  the  the  proper  motive  to  repentance 
fet   before    us,    in  all   the  fcriptures .   The  proper    mo-« 

tive    to     repentance  is   the     evil   of   fm . And  if   we 

have  not  the  knowledge  of  the  evil  of  lln^  it  is  impoffible 
we  ihould  know  the  grace  of  pardon,  or  of  falvation 
from  that    punilhment    which  is  juill}'"    deferved   by  fm . 

7.  The  apoftle  declares,  as  we  have  feen,  that  *•  by  the 
law  is  the  knowledge  of  //V;,''  and  that  ''the  law 
worketh  lurath  .'^  But  on  the  principle  of  this  objection, 
by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  gracc^  and  the  law 
worketh  ^r^cf :  and  God  without  any  atonement  did 
grant  to  fmners  fome  remiflion  or  mitigation  of  deferv- 
ed punifhment.  Why  then  could  not  complete  remiih-^ 
on  or  pardon  have  been  granted  in  the  fame  way? 
What  need  was  there  of  Christ  and  his  death?  Yet 
Dr  .  C  .  holds ,  that  it  was  with  a  view  to  the  obedience 
and  death  of  Christ,  upon  this  account ^  upon  this  ground, 
for  this  reafon,  that  cod  was  pleafed  to  make  the  gofpel  pro- 
mife  of  a  glorious  immortality  to  the  miferable  fons  of  men  ." 

8 .  IF  the  full  punifhment  to  which  the  linner  juilly 
cxpofes  himfelf  by  {in,  be  not  pointed  out  in  the  law; 
it  is  not  a  good  law,  as  it  does  not  teach  the  fub- 
jecT:  of  the  law  the  truth  in  this  matter ;  but  it  is  a 
deceitful  law,  or  is  direcfcly  calculated  to  deceive.  It  threat- 
ens a  punifhment,  which  the  fubjed  would  naturally 
believe  to  be  the  whole  punifhment  to  \a  hich  he  is 
expofed  by    tranfgrefTion,  or  which  can  be  juftly  inflifted 

on  him. But  this,  if  the  obiedion  be  -well    p-rounded, 

IS  by  no  means  the  cafe .  Thus  the  lav/  would  naturally 
tend    to  deceive  fatally  all  its  fubjecls. 

9 .  From  what  is  granted  by  Dr .  C ,  it  certainly  fol- 
lows, that  the  threatening  of  the  law  is  all  that  can  be 
inflicted  conlii'bently  v/itii  juftice,  and  that  the  punifh- 
ment threatened  in  the,  law,  and  that  v/hich  is  allowed  by 
ftrict  juftice,  is  one  and  the  fame.  He  fays,  *' Whatever 
fm  may  in  its  own  nature,  be  fuppofed  to  deferve  ;  it  is 
Xiot     reafonabls   to  fnppofe,  that  it   ihould  be  univerfally 

reckoned 


\ 


Cbje^ions   Cojijidered.  21 

reckoned  to  death;,  when  no  law  is  in   being    that  makes 

death    the    Ipecial    penalty  of   tranlgreiiion /** ^'Sin 

is  not  reckoned,  brought  to  account,  ought  not  to  be 
looked  upon  as  being  taxed  with  the  forfeiture  of  life, 
when  there  is  no  law  in  being,  with  death  as  its  af-i 
ffixed  fanction.":]:  Therefore  whatever  iin  may  be  fup- 
poled  to  deferve,  it  is  not  rea/'mablcy  that  it  ihould  be 
reckoned,  it  ought  not  to  be  reckoned,  or  which  is  the 
fame  thing,  it  is  not  juj},  that  it  Ihould  be  reckoned  lo 
any  puniihment  whatever,  when  there  is  no  law  in  being, 
whjch  makes  that  puniUmient  the  fpecial  penalty  of 
tranfgrellion .  Therefore,  as  I  faid,  the  puniHiment 
threatened  in  the  law,  is  all  which  can  be  inflicted  coi>^ 
ilftently  with  juftice ;  and  the  punifnment  threatened  in 
the  la"^,  and  that  which  is  allowed  by  fti'icl  jultice,  are 
one  and  the  fame  . 

10 .  If  the  law  do  not  threaten  all  that  punifhmerjt, 
which  isjuft,  we  cannot  polTibly  tell  what  is  a  juit  pu-« 
nilhment,  or  what  juflice  threatens  or  admits  with  re<-« 
gard  to  puniihment,  and  Vv'hat  it  does  not  admit.  If  once 
we  give  up  the  law  and  tlie  teftimony,  we  are  left  to  our 
own  im.aginations  .  Dr  .  C  .  holds,  tliat  the  wages  of  fin 
are  the  fecond  death,  and  that  this  death  is  a  punifhm.enc 
which  fliall  laft,  according  to  the  language  of  fcriptm^e, 
for  ever  and  ever .  Aj-e  thefe  wages,  and  this  puniih- 
ment which  ihall  continue  for  ever  and  ever,  adequate  to 
the    demand   of  juflice  or  not?   If  they  are,  then  the  law 

threatens  ail  which  juflice   requires. If  they  are  not; 

then  the^  v/ages  of  im,  and  the  punifhment  forever  and 
ever,  are  a  gracious  puniihment,  and  finners  deferve  a 
longer  puniihment.  But  how  do  wx  know,  that  fmners 
deferve  a  longer  punifliment,  than  this?  No  longer  pu— 
nilhmeht  is  threatened  in  the  law,  or  in  any  part  of  fcrip-« 
ture . 

11.  IF  fin  deferve  a  longer  puniihment,  than  that 
which  is  threatened  in  the  law,  it  deferves  either  an  end^ 
lefs  punifhment,  or  a  temporary  punifhment  longer  than 
that  v/hich  is  threatened  in  the  law .  Btit  if  fin  deferve 
an  endlefs  punifhment,  it  is  an  infnlte  evil . — If  it  deferve 
a  temporary  punifhment  though  longer  than  that  v.  hich  is 
threatened  in  the  law,  all  men  may  finally  be  favcd,  even 
though  the  ftate  of  future  punifhment  be  intended  to  fa- 
tisfy  the  divine  juflice  :  the  contrary  of  v/hich  hovv-ever  is 
aiTerted  by  Dr.    C.  i2.    IF 

*  P.   23.     t  47. 


,%%  OhjeSiions   Gonjidcred, 

j2.  IF  the  damned,  though  they  fliall  bepimifhed  ac- 
cording to  law,  will  not  be  punifhed  as  much  as  they  de— 
ferve  ;  what  fhall  we  make  of  the  fcriptures,  which  de-^ 
clare,  that  they  fhall  have  judgment  without  mercy ; 
that  God  will  not  fpare,  nor  pity  them;  that  wrath  iha^ll 
be  poured   upon  them   without   mixture  ?  &:c . 

I  NOW  appeal  to  the  reader,  whether,  notwithftand-^ 
2ng  this  objetflion,  the  damned,  in  fufFering  the  wdiole 
penalty  thretened  in  the  divine  law,  do  not  fuffer  as  much 
as  they  deferve  according  to  ftrift  juftice,  and  therefore 
fufFer  a  penalty  to  the   higheft  degree  \andictive  . 

IV .  IF  it  ihould  be  further  objefted,  that  there  is  no 
inconnftency  in  reprefenting  future  punilhment  to  be  fully 
adequate  to  the  demerit  of  lin  ;  and  yet  to  reprefent  it  as 
difciplinary,  and  adapted  to  the  repentance  and  perfonal 
good  of  the  patient :  as  both  the  ends  of  the  perfonal  good 
of  the  patient,  and  of  the  fatisfaction  of  juflice^  are  an-* 
fwered  by  it:  it  is  to  he  noticed, 

1.  If  this  objection  mean,  that  the  punifhment  which 
is  merely  adapted  to  the  perfonal  good  of  the  patient,  be 
all  which  is  deferved  by  lln  ;  I  beg  leave  tp  refer  the  ob- 
jedor  to  the  next  chapter. 

2.  If  it  mean,  that  though  fm  do  deferve,  and  the 
damned  will  fufter,  more  punifhment,  than  that  which  is 
conducive  to  the  perfonal  good  of  the  patient ;  even  all 
that  punifhment  which  is  according  to  fir ict  juftice ;  yet 
all  will  be  laved  finally  :  then  it  will  follow  that  an 
cndlefs  punifhment  is  not  deferved  by  fin.  In  this  cafe, 
I  beg  leave  to  refer  the  objeftor  to  chapter   VI. 

3.  Still  on  the  foundation  of  this  objediion,  the  damn- 
ed, as  they  Vvdll  have  previoufly  fuffered  all  that  they  de- 
serve, Vvdll  finally  be  delivered  from  further  fufFering  of 
wrath,  not  by  forgivenefs,  not  by  grace,  nor  through 
Christ;  but  entirely  on  the  footing  of  ftrid  juftice,  as 
having  fufi^'ered  the  full  penalty  of  the  law. 

4.  Dr.  C.  COULD  not  confiilently  make  this  objedlion. 
The  objedtion  holds,  that  the  damned  do  fufFer  a  punifh- 
ment entirely  fatisfadory  to  jufhice  :  and  Dr.  C.  allows, 
that  if  the  punifnment  of  the  wicked  be  intended  to  "  fatis- 
"  fy  the  juffice  cf  God,  and  give  warning  to  otliers, 
^'  tis  impciilble  all  men  fnould  be  faved*." 

Having  in  this  firft  chspter^  (o  far  attended  to  Dr.  C's 

fvftem 
*  P.   ii. 


Mire  than  Di/cipRne  33 

fyftem  concerning  future  puniihment,  as  to  find,  that 
it  appears  to  be  a  combination  of  the  moft  jarring  princi- 
ples ;  and  having  particularly  pointed  out  the  mutual 
difcordance  of  thofe  principles ;  I  might  fparc  myfelf  the 
labour  of  a  further  examination  of  his  book  ;  until  at  leaft 
it  fhould  be  made  to  appear,    that   thofe  principles  do  in 

reality   harmonize    with  each    other . But  as  fomc 

may  entertain  the  opinion,  that  though  there  be  incon- 
iiftences  in  the  Book,  yet  the  general  dodrine  of  uni— 
verfal  faivation  is  true,  and  is  defenfible,  if  not  on  all 
the  grounds,  on  which  Dr .  C .  has  undertaken  the 
defence  of  it,  yet  on  fome  of  them  at  leaft;  therefore 
I  have  determined  to  proceed  to  a  more  particular  ex- 
amination of  this  doctrine,  and  of  the  arguments  brought 
by  Dr.  C.  in  fupport  of  it. 


CHAP.        11. 

Whether  the  damned  defervc  any  other  punipomenty  than  that 
which  is  conducive  to  their  perfonal  good, 

ON  the  fuppofition,  that  future  punifhment  is  a  mere 
difcipline  neceiTary  and  happily  conducive  to  the  re- 
pentance and  good  of  the  damned ;  it  may  be  afked, 
whether  fuch  difcipline  be  all  v/hich  they  deferve,  and 
which  can  conl?.ftently  with  ftrift  juftice  be  inflicted  ;  or 
whether  they  do  indeed  deferve  a  greater  degree  or  du- 
ration of'punifnment,  than  that  which  is  fuiFicient  to  lead 
them  to  repentance,  and  that  additional  puniihment  be  by 
grace  remitted  to  them.  Let  us  confider  both  thefe  hy- 
pothefe^. 

The  firjiis,  that  the  wicked  deferve,  according  toftrift 
juftice,  no  more  puniihment^  than  is  neceiTary  to  lead  them 
to  repentance,  and  to  prepare  them  for  happinefs. 
That  this  is  not  a  mere  hypothefis  made  by  an  opponent 
of  Dr.  C.  but  is  a  doctrine  implied  at  leafb,  if  not  expreff- 
ly  alTerted  in  his  book,  may  appear  by  the  following  quo- 
tations. *^  *  Is  it  not  far  more  reafonable  to  fuppofe,  that 
*^  the  miferies  of  the  other  world  are  a  proper  difcipline  m 
•'  order  to  accompliih  this  end''  [the  recovery  of  fumersji 

than 
*  P.  1^l,  322. 


$4  More  than  Difdplin& 

^^  than  tlint  they  fliould  be  final  and  vindictive  only  V* 
If  a  final  and  vindictive  pnnifliment  be  entirely  juft,  what 
kas  r.eafon  to  objeft  to  the  infli^^ion  of  it,  in  fome  inftances 
at  lealt? — *  **The  confideraticn  of  hell  as  a  purging  fire^ 
'*  is  that  only  which  can  make  the  matter  fit  eafy  on  one's 
*'  mind.''  But  if  hell,  though  net  merely  a  purging  fire, 
be  juilly  defer ved,  why  does  not  the  thought  of  it  fit  eafy 
on  one's  mind  ?  So  that  it  is  m.anifeflly  implied  in  thia 
reafoninp- of  Dr.  C.  that  no  other  punifhment  of  the  wick- 
cd  can  be  reconciled  witii  jullice,  than  that  which  i$ 
adapted  to  their  perfonal  good . 

Thf,  fame  is  implicitly  ailerted  by  other  v*Titers  on  the 
fame  fide  of  the  queflion  concerning    future   paniihrnent. 
Bifhop  Neivton^  in  his  Differtation  on  the  final  ft  ate  of  man- 
kind,\  f^^ySj  ^'   It  IS  jiAft  and  wife  and  good,  and  even  mer- 
'^  ciful,    to  correft  a  finner  as  long  as  he  clef  ewes  correct- 
*^^  ion  ;   to  whip  and  fcourge  him,  as  I  ma}'-  fay,  out   of  his 
'^  faults.'*      Therefore  all  the  punilhment  of  the  finner, 
which  is  juft  y  and  which  he  deferves^  is    cbrreclion,   or  td 
be  fcourged  out  of  his  faults.       The   Chevalier  Ramfay 
tells  us,  that  ^^    Juftice  is  that   perfection   in    God,    by 
''  which  he  endeavours  to  make  all  intelligences  juflj.'* 
'^  Vindictive  juftice,  is  that  attribute  in  God,  by  which  he 
**  purfues  vice  with  all  forts  of  torments,   till  it  be  totally 
*'  extirpated,    deftroyed  and  annihilated j|."      Therefore 
if  God  intlift  any  punifnment  with  any  other  defign,  than 
to  make  the  fubjed  of  that  punifhment  jufl,  and  to  extirpate 
vice  from  him,  he  violates  even  wwrt'/i^ii'fjuftice.  M.  Pet- 
itpierre  in  a  tradl  lately  publifhed  in  England,  and  highly 
applauded  by  fome,  declares,  that   "  repentance  appeafes 
'*  divine   anger,  and  difarms  its  jufiice ;  becaufe   it   ac- 
*'  complifhes  the  end   infinite  goodnefs  has  in  view,  even 
"  when  arrayed  in  the  awful    majefly  of  avenging  ju— 
"  ftice ;  which  was   fevere,    becaufe  the    moral  Itate  of. 
'^  the  finner  required  fuch  difcipline  ;  and  which  when 
*^  that  flate  is  reverfed,  by  converfion  and  holinefs,  will 
*'  have  nothing  to  bellow  fuitable  to  it,    but  the  delight- 
ful    manifefrations    of    mercy     and     forgivenefs  ."*"' 
The  honour  ,  of  the   divine    law    is  fufiiciently  guard- 
ed by  the  puniiliment  of  the    finner  as  long  as    he  re- 
mains impenitent,   and  by  the  faithful  and     obedient 
*'  adherence   of  the  penitent  oiFender  .  Divine  jufiice  is 

*  P.   324.  always 

f   As  tranfcf'lbed  In  the  Ahnthly  Revieiv  for  Mtirch  1783. 
:|:   Principles  of  Nat.  ^  Rt-u^  d  Religion y  Vol.1,    P.   432, 
\  Ibid.  P,  j\2^»   ^^  Thoughts  on  the  Divine goodnrfs.  P.iio, 


deferved  by  the  Wicked,  %^ 

*'  always  fatisfied  when  it  attains  its  end;  and  this 
"  end  is  always  attained,  whenever  the  fmner  is  brought 
*^  to  repentance.'***  So  that  it  is  evident,  that  all  thefe 
writers  implicitly  held  the  propofition  now  under  conli- 
deration,  which  is,  that  the  wicked  deferve  according  to 
ftrid  juflice,  no  more  puniihment  than  is  neceifary  to  lead 
them  to  repentance,  and  prepare  them  for  happinels. 
This  is  not  only  a  real  tenet  of  thofe  writers,  but  is  moit 
eiTential  and  important  to  their  fyftem  ;  for  if  the  con- 
trary can  be  eflablifned,  confequences  will  follow,  which 
will  greatly  embarrafs,  if  not  entirely  overthrow  that  fy- 
frem.  I  therefore  beg  the  patience  of  the  reader,  while  I 
particularly  examine  that  tenet:  Concerning  it  the  fol-* 
lowing   obfer'^Mtions  may  be  made, 

I.  It  implies  that  the  puniihment  which  is  necefTary  to 
lead  the  wicked  to  repentance  is  the  curfe  of  the  divine 
lav,^  Without  doubt  that  puniihment  which  amounts  to 
the  utmoil,  v/hich  ftrict  juftice  admits,  includes  the  pe- 
nalty or  curfe  of  the  divine  law .  The  latter  does  not 
exceed  the  former ;  becaufe  the  divine  law  is  founded  in 
perfe6l  jufi:ice,  and  whatever  is  inconufl;6nt  with  jullice, 
is  equally  inconfiilent  Vvith  the  divine  law.  If  therefore 
the  linner  deferve,  according  to  ftricl  juflice,  precifely 
fo  much  punifnment  as  is  neceifary  to  lead  him  to  re- 
pentance and  no  more,  then  this  is  the  true   and  utmoft 

curfe  of  the  divine   law. Yet  fuch    a  punifhment    as 

this,  is  really  on  the  whole  no  evil,  and  therefore  no 
curfe  even  to  the  fubje6t ;  becaufe  by  the  fuppolition  it 
is  neceifary  to  lead  him  to  repentance,  and  prepai*e  him 
for  the  everlafting  joys  and  glory  of  heaven. 

Dr.  C.  has  given  us  his  idea  of  a  curfe,  in  his  Five 
Diifertatjons,*  in  the  following  words,  ^^Ateilimony  of  the 
divine  difpleafure  againfl  man's  offence"  :  ^^A  teftimony 
of  the  vengeance  of  god,  which  is  2l  judg7neyit  on  his  part 
and  a  real  evil  on  man's  part."  In  the  fame  book,;!:  he 
ftates  his  idea  of  a  bleiTmg  to  a  man,  to  be,  *^That  which 
is  greatly  to  his  advantage."  But  the  pains  of  hell,  if 
they  be  abfolutely  neceflary,  and  moft  happily  conducive 
to  the  repentance  and  endlefs  happinefs  of  the  damned, 
are  lio  reel  evil  on  their  part,  nor  any  judgment  or  teili- 
mony  o^  vengeance  on  god's  part:  and  therefore  are  no 
<  iirfe  at  all;  but  are  accordino-  to  the  Doftor's  own  definition 

E  a  real 

■''*  Ibid.    112.     *  P.    IC9   no.        X  P.    112. 


z6  31: n  th^n  DiA:lj:ib:e 

s.  re^J  bleff^r:g,  and  a  resJ  tefomoiiy  of  the  tftsevaUnce  of 
GOD  to  the  damned.  Surelv  a  metllcine  of  difaoreeable 
taile,  bur  abt'cluiely  neceiii-rv  to  preier^^  the  K:e,  or  re- 
ftore  the  health  or  a  man,  and  admiiiiiicreG  with  coniiinniiate 
iad^ment,  is  no  evil  or  curfe  to  the  ULan  to  v/hom  it  k 
adiniiiiit:ered :  bur  is  a  deiirable  good,  or  a  :  to  him ; 

ajid  the  adminiltratioii  of  it,  is  a  full  proot  ^:  Li^  benevo- 
lence of  the  phj.liciantohis  pirenr.  AyTOOi  equ2lly  de- 
monftratiTe  of  the  divine  benevcicace  to  the  diiiniied,  is 
the  whole  of  their  puaiihment  in  heU,  if  it  be  defigned 
merely  talead  them  to  repentance  and  to  prepare  them 
for  happinefi :  and  this  iruit  of  the  diTine  benevolence 
can.  according  to  Dr.  C^s  o*^.ti  definition  of  a  curie,  be 
Eo  curfe. 

It  is  gr^mred  by  Dr  C.  and  in  general  by  ether  ad- 
vocates for  univerial  falvatioa,  that  the  tcrments  of  hell 
are  not  only  wifely  adapted,  bar  that  they  are  ah:  :- 
latelv  neceiTz—r  to  lead  the  damned  to  repentance ;  il~a: 
no  more  gcnde  means  v  ould  io  well  aniv.  er  the  pro- 
pofed  end :  that  therefore  the  divine  goo-dnefs  and  viii- 
dom    have    chcffn    and  '    z    thofe    torments,  as  the 

means  of  e'3od   to  the   da:. But  certain!"  that  which 

is  en  the  v.  hole  nzceiTarv  for  a  cerlon's  own  ^ood,  is  to 
him,  on  the  whole,  no  real  evil,  and  therefore  no  curfe  ; 
\  ody  a  bieiliiig;  a  wife  man  v.culd    chcofe  it  for 

i_  _  . as  it  is,  in  its    ccnnecdon,    really    and    prcperly 

elieible  or  defirable.  If  the  torments  of  hell  taken  in 
connedion  'with  repenrance  and  enoleis  hippinefs  be 
a  Clin e,  then  repentance  and  endlefs  happineis  taken  in 
connection  with  the  torments  of  heU,  are  a  curfe  too.  If 
fome  bitter  pill,  coafiJered  as  connefred  with  life^  be  a 
curfe  :  than  life  cennccred  v^-irh  that  pill,  is  a  curfe  too. 
Th2i  and  that  only  is  a  curfe  to  a  perfon,  which  taken 
in  its  proper  connefnons  and  dependences,  renders  him 
mcffe  miierable,  than  he  v-  ould  be  without  it.  On  the  con- 
trarv,  that  is  a  bleiSng   :  :-fon,  v.Lidi    ttiken    in  its 

proper  ccnnecaons  and   ^  enccs,  renders  him   mere 

happy  than  he  would  be  wiihoat  it.  It  is  juil  as  great  a 
bicinng  and  juit  as  great  a  privilege,  as  happinefs  itleh". 
And  with  whit  j^^prier  "'  c:Ln  be  called  a  t-tr/>,  I 
appeal    to  every    man  a:  ^  _.  v.-idi  prvispnciy   of  lan- 

guage to  determine.  To  call  thii  a  tune  is  to  coof&jiid 

a  curie 


icfervzd  H    th^   Wicked. 


-? 


a  curfe  and  a  '  '    "    ' This  being  ihe  true  idea  of 

a  ciirle  and  a  bl~-  -^,  it  immediatel  ■  fol]o%vs  en  he  luj — 
position  now  under  confideralion,  that  the  torments  of 
hell  are  no  curie,  but  a  bleHincr  to  rhofe  on  whom  ther 
are  inilicted  ;  becaufe  toe  ver}'  iopr-olition  is,  that  they 
are  neceiT.  ry  to  lecure  and  promore  tiielr  happinefs  and 
sre   inSicred  for   this  end  cnlv. 

The  ablurdit].-  then,  to  vhich  on  the  v> hole  we  are 
reduced  is,  that  thofe  means ^  which  are  the  belt  that 
iniiire  wi^Jo^  ini'elf  could  devife  -  and  apply,  for 
the  lalratoa  of  thofe  who  die  in  impenitence,  are  the 
ciiiie  of  the  -'--    -   law;   -r  -         t  :'- :  rfeateft  evil  which 

God  can  cc  ily  wit!  7       :   on  the    greateft 

and  moil  obdurate  enemy  of  himjelf,  of  his  Son  our  glo- 
rious Saviour,  of  his  law,  of  his  grace,  and  of  mankind, 
is,  to  put  him  under  the  bell:  polUble  advantages  to  fe— 
cure  and  promote  hi?  higheil  everlafting  happineis : 
V.'hich  is  no  more  nor  lefs  than  to  fay.  That  the  great- 
eii  curie  which  Gc-d  can  conliitently  \^-ith  his  perfecriocs 
in£.i:i  en  the  irnner  d^incr  in  imnenitence,  is  to  beilo^v 
en  him  the  createil  bleilino-.  vv  hich  it  is  m  the  power  ot 
omnipotence  and  infinite  bount\'  to  bellow  on  him,  in  his 
prefent  temper  of  mind;  that  the  divine  law  has 
no  curfe  at  all  annexed  to  it ;  and  that  the  penalty  of 
the  law  is  an  ineftimable  bleiFrng,  the  blelling  of  repen- 
tance, or  of  that  c  '  b  is  a~  '  *  neceiTcr;-, 
and  moft  wifely  ^_..  .-..  ::,  .„id  to  r^:-.  .-i.ce,  and  to 
prepare  for  the  greateit  happineis. 

If  on  tlys    view  of  the  matter,  it  faould  be  faid,  that 
the  pur   "  t  of  hell  is  not  the  greateit  blefiln^  which 

God  car  __.;  V  on  the  irnner  who  dies  in  imp-enitence  ; 
that  it  would  be  a  greater  bie£Ing,  to  grant  him  repen- 
tance by'immediat?    ericacijiis    grace,  and   then   receive 

Lin:  toheavenlv  hawine;s; Concerning  this  I  obler'.'e, 

tii_r  it  ^ves  up  the  only  orcund,  en  wliich  the  fuppc£— 
tion  now  under  ccnfideration  relts,  and  on  v.  hich  alone  it 
can  be  :'  zA,   The  fuppc.ition  i>,   -'  -  punilrr-e-t 

cf  helli.  --.---:ed  -^-ith  the  fole  view  c:  .--.7,z  the  lu3*- 
crers  to  renentance.  and  of  rromotin^  their  q^z-A.  But 
if  their  2f^<i6.  mi*^ht  be  as  ejecraaliv  lecured  and  rroirir-- 
ed  bv  other  me 2ns,  as  is  no^w^  alTerted,  men  the  torm  nti 
ef  heli  are  not  irnicicd  to  promote  the  good  or  the  fJtffer  rs. 

So  {-as 


28  Mori   than    DtfcipUne 

So  far  as  their  good  is  concerned,  tliofe  torments  arc 
needlcfs,  nay  they  are  a  wanton  exercife  of  cruelty. 
But  as  cruelty  cannot  be  afcribed  to  the  only  vjife  Cod,  he 
muft,  if  this  objection  be  valid,  inflicSt  the  torments  of 
hell,  for  fome  other  end,  than  the  final  happinefs  of  thofe 
who  are  Cent  to  that  world  of  mifery. 

Beside;  Dr.  C.  and  other  oppofers  of  endlefs  punifh— 
ment,  are  no  friends  to  the  dotlrine  of  efficacious  grace. 
According  to  their  fyftem,  eiFicacious  grace  deftroys  alJ 
liberty  and  moral  agency,  and  reduces  men  to  mere  ma- 
chines. Therefore  in  their  view,  to  be  led  to  repentance 
by  efficacious  grace,  is  not  a  greater  bleflmg,  than  to  be 
led  to  repentance  by  the  torments  of  hell ;  becaufe  it  is 
not  a  greater  blelling  to  be  a  watch  or  a  windmill  than  to 
be  a  rational  moral  agent.  Nay,  according  to  their  fyf- 
tem,  there  is  no  poilibility  of  leading  by  efficacious  grace 
any  man  to  a  repentence  which  is  of  a  holy  or  of  a  moral 
nature :  becaufe  according  to  their  fyitem,  a  neceffary 
hoiinefs  is  no  holine  fs,  and  a  necefTary  repentance  is  no 
more  of  a  moral  nature,  than  the  working  of  a  machine. 

2.  If  all  who  are  faved,  be  delivered  from  wrath  on 
account  of  the  merit  of  Chrift  in  any  fenfe,  then  that 
punilhment,  which  leads  to  repentance,  is  not  the  curfe 
of  the  law,  or  is  not  all  the  punilhment  which  juflice 
admits.  They  who  fufter  the  curfe  of  the  law,  fatisfy 
the  law,  and  therefore  ftand  in  no  need  of  the  merit  of 
Chrift  to  fatitfy  the  law  or  to  deliver  them  from  the  curfe 
of  it.  They  can  no  longer  confiftently  with  juil;ice  be 
holden  under  that  curfe.  To  hold  fuch  perfons  ftill  under 
the  curfe  of  the  law,  unlefs  they  can  obtain  an  interef t  in 
the  merit  ©f  Chrift,  cm  never  be  reconciled  with  the 
moral  perfedtion  of  God.  ^  et  this  is  the  very  fa6t,  if 
that  punifnment  which  leads  to  repentance  be  the  curfe 
of  the  law  and  at  the  fame  time,  as  Dr.  C.  abundantly 
holds,  falvalion  in  the  deliverance  from  wrath,  as  well  as  in 
the  beftowment  of  poutive  happinefs,  be  granted  to  no 
man,    but  on  account  of  the  merit  of  Chrift. 

3.  On  this  hypotheiis,  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  will  not 
fave    all   men,  nor   will  all  m^en   be   faved,  whether   by 

Chrift,  or  without  him. Deliverance   from  the   curfe 

of  the  law  is  effential  to  falvation.     But   if  the    curfe    of 
the  law  bs  that  pujiirnment,  which  is  neceflary   to   lead  to 

repentance 


deferved  by   the  Wicked.  29 

repentance  ;  and  if,  as  the  advocates  for  univerfal  falva- 
tion  bold,  a  great  part  of  mankind  will  fufFer  this  punifh- 
menr  ;  it  follows^  that  a  great  part  of  mankind  will  not 
be  faved.  For  to  be  faved,  and  yet  to  fufFer  the  curfe  of 
the  law,  isadired  contradiction.  To  fuffer  the  curfe  of 
the  law  is  to  be  damned,  and  is  all  the  damnation  to 
which  any  fmner  is  expofed,  and  to  which  juftice,  the 
mojQ;  Ttrid  and  rigorous  jufbice,  can  doom  him.  If  then  any 
man  have  fuiFered  this  dr.mnation,  from  what  is  he  or 
can  he  be  faved  ?  Certainly  from  nothing,  becaufe  he  is 
expofed  to  nothing  :  unlefs  we  fay,  that  by  the  juft  law 
of  the  God  of  perje^i  jvftice,  he  is  expofed  to  ujiiujt  pun- 
iihmcnt. 

If  to  this  argument  it  be  objeded,  that  though  all  men 
are  not  faved  from  the  curfe  of  the  law,  whether  by 
Chrift,  or  without  him ;  yet  all  are  finally  admitted  to 
happinefs ;  thofe  who  repent  in  this  life,  are  admitted  to 
happinefs  through  the  merits  of  Chrift ;  thofe  who  die 
impenitent,  are  admitted  to  the  fame,  in  confequence  of 
enduring  in  their  own  perlons,  the  curfe  of  the  law  :  and 
that  this  is  all  which  is  intended  by  the  falvation  of  all 
men  : with  refpecl:  to  this  I  obferve. 

( 1 )  This  is  no  proper  falvation^  which  in  its  primary 
meaning  jQgnilies  a  deliverance  from  evil.  But  accord- 
ing to  the  cafe  now  ftated,  fome  men  are  not  deliv- 
ered from,  any  evil,  to  which  they  ever  were  expofed ; 
but   fufFer   it  all.     Therefore  they  are  not    faved. 

(2)  That  this  objedion  entirely  fets  afide,  with  re- 
gard to  \  great  part  of  mankind,  falvation  in  the  way 
of  forgivenffs  of  Fm,  and  the  free  grace  of  God  in  the 
pardon  of  the  Fniner>  which  is  contrary  to  the  whole 
gofpel.  * 

But  to  proceed  ;  as  Chrift,  on  the  prefent  hypothefis, 
doth  not  in  fad  fave  all  men  ;  fo  it  would  be  no  favour 
to  them,  for  him  to  attempt  the  falvation  of  all  thofe  who 
die  impenitent.  An  attempt  to  deliver  them  from  the 
curfe  of  the  law^  would  be  an  attempt  to  deprive  them 
of  the  moft  neceiFary,  wife,  deiirable  and  merciful 
means  of  grace,  on  which  their  eternal  happinefs  de- 
pends :  an  attempt  not  to  dchver  them  from  any  thing 
which  on  the  whole  is  an  evil,  a  difadvantage  even  to 
themfeives  ;  but  to  deprive  them  of  that  on  whi«h   their 

fupreme 


50  ?>^ore   than   Dlfciplhn' 

fbpremc  interefl  depends ;  of  that  which  is  in  fa(5l  the 
greateft  good,  v/hich  they,  in  their  prelent  temper  can 
enjoy,  and  the  greateft   bleflmg   v/hich    at   prefent    God 

can  poiTibly  beftow  on  them. Now  to  deprive  them  of 

this,  is  certainly  no  favour,  nor  any  fruit  of  grace,  mer- 
cy or  goodnefs  to  them  perfonaily.  Even  to  take  them 
to  heaven,  before  they  have  pafled  through  this  difcrp- 
]ine  v/culd  by  no  means  be  fo  great  a  favour  to  them,  as 
to  caufe  them  to  pais  through  this  diicipline  ;  as  it  would 
be  to  take  them  to  heaven  before  they  were  prepared  for 
it,  or  could  enjoy  happinefs  in  it. 

Further  •  if  the  curfe  of  the  lav/  be  that  punil'hment, 
which  is  neceiTaiy  to  lead  to  repentance,  then  Chrift 
came  not  to  deliver  from  the  curfe  of  the  law,  all  who 
are  to  be  finally  happy,  but  to  infiicl  that  curfe  on  a  part 
of  them.  Chrift  is  exalted  to  be  a  prince  and  a  Savi- 
our to  give  repentance  and  forgiven  efs  of  fms.  It  is 
apart  of  his  oiKce,  to  bring  men  to  repentance,  by  all 
wife  and  proper  means.  Dr.  C.  and  other  advocates 
for  univerfal  I'alvation,  fuppofe,  that  hell  torments  are 
the  means,  and  moft  v/ife,  proper  and  necefiary  means 
too,  by  which  Chrift  will  execute  the  work  of  giving  re- 
pentance to  all  the  damned.  Therefore  his  work  as  a 
iaviour,  fo  far  as  refpecls  them^  is,  on  Dr.  C's  plan,  not 
to  deliver  them  from  the  curfe  of  the  law,  but  to  in- 
Hid  that  curfe  on  them.  But  who  is  not  ftruck  with  the 
contrariety  of  this  idea,  to  the  conftant,  uniform  declara- 
tions of  fcripture,  that  Chrift  came  to  redeem  us  from 
the  curfe  of  the  law,  to  fave  us  from  wrath,  to  deliver  us 
from  the  wrath  to  come,  kc. 

WiLi,  it  be  faid  in  oppofition  to  the  laft  obfervation, 
that  thofe  who  die  in  impenitence,  are  not  faved  in  any 
fenfeby  or  through  Chrift,  whether  by  his, atonement,  or 
by  him  as  God's  prime  miniftcr,  in  the  fulnefs  of  times 
bringing  all  to  repentance  ;  and  that  therefore  Chrift  is 
not  come  to  infiicl  the  curfe  of  the  law  on  any  who  fhall 
be  finally  happy  r  Then  let  it  never  more  be  pleaded, 
that  Chrift  is  the  faviour  of  all  men  ;  that  he  gave  himfelf  a 
ranfom  for  all ;  that  he  tafted  death  fer  every  man  ;  that 
the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  w^ich  is  by  on? 
man  Jefus  Chrift,  hath  abounded  unto  the  ■  many, 
(meaning   all  men )  that  by  the  righteoufnefs    of  one  the 

free 


dsfervtd  by   ih:  Wicked i  jr 

free  gift  fhall  come  upon  all  men  to  julliiicatlGn  of  life  ; 
that  Chrift  muft  reign,  till  he  fhall  have  put  all  enemies 
under  his  feet,  in  genuine  repentance  ;  that  peace  be- 
ing made  by  the  blood  of  the  crofs,  it  pleafed  the  father 
hy  Chr'ijt  to  reconcile  all  things  to  himfelf . .  For  if  Chrift 
ihall  not  finally  have  faved  all  men  by  his  merit,  nor  ihall 
have  led  them  to  repentance  in  the  execution  of  the 
fcheme  of  providence  ;  in  what  fenfe  can  the  falvation  of  all 
men  be  afcribed  to  Chrifc?  In  what  conceivable  fenfe  can  he 

be  called  the  Saviour  of   all    men? 1  hereforc    if  any 

adopt  th2  idea  of  the  objection  jufi  flated,  let  them  never 
more  plead  in  favour  of  the  falvation  cf  all  men,  any  of 
thofe  paiTages  of  fcripture  referred  to  above,  nor  any 
palTage,   v-zhich  relates  to  falvation  by  Chrift. 

Beside;  if  the  damned  be  led  to  repentance  by  the 
torments  of  hell,  by  whom  are  thofe  torments  inflidled  ? 
Not  by  Chrift  it  leems,  becaufe  that  would  imply,  that 
Chrift  came  not  to  deliver  all  who  fhall  be  finally  happy, 
from  the  curfe  of  the  law  ;  but  to  inflift  that  curfe  on  a 
part  of  them.  By  whom  then  will  thofe  torments,  thofe 
moft  excellent  means  of  grace,  be  adminiftered  ?  Is 
not  Chrift-  the  judge  of  all  men?  The  father  judgeth  no 
man^  but  hath  committed  all  judgment  to  the  fon.  Wc 
muft  all  ftand  at  his  judgment  feat  and  receive  according 
to  that  which  we  fhall  have  done  in  the  body  whether  good 
or  evil  :  and  he  will  fay;  Depart,  -ye  curfed,  into  ever- 
lafting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels. 

4.  If  the  penalty  of  the  law  confift  in  that  puniihment, 
which  i&  neceffary  to  lead  to  repentance,  then  all  the 
damned,  if  brought  to  repentance  at  all,  are  delivered  out 
of  hell,  not  on  the  footing  of  grace  and  mercy  ^  or  of  fa- 
vour  and  goodnefs ;  but  en  the  footing  of  the  ftricteft 
juftice  ;   not  on  the  footing  of  thegofpel,  but  of  the  rigour 

of  law. -By    the  prefent  hypotheiis,   the   damned   all 

iufFer  that  punifhment^  which  is  neceiTiiry  to  lead  them  to 
repentance,  and  therein  fufter  the  curfe  of  the  law,  or 
all  that  punifiiment  which  the  utmoft  rigour  of  law  and 
juftice  denounces  or  can  inflict.  If  the  Deity  himfelf  were 
to  proceed  in  puni filing,  one  ftep  beyond  this  hue,  he 
would  exceed  the  bounds  of  juftice,  v/ould  rife  in  oppofltion 
to  his  own  perfedions,  would  deny  him.felf ;  in  fliort, 
•^Youid  no  longer  be  God.     Therefore   as  foon   as  a  iinner 

in  hell 


^i  More  than  Difctpilns 

in  bell  is  brought  to  repentance,  he  miifl:  be  immediatel/ 
releafed.  Nor  is  he  under  obligation  to  plead  for  grace 
or  favour ;  he  may  demand  releafe  on  the  footing  of  per- 
fonal  juilice.  He  is  under  no  necefTity  to  have  recourfe  to 
the  gofpel,  he  may  infifl:  on  his  perfonal  right,  on  the  foot- 
ing of  the  law.  He  hath  fatisfied  the  law;  he  hath  fatif- 
fied  the  juftice  of  God  ;  it  hath  taken  its  courfe  on 
him  ;  he  hath  nothing  more  to  fear  from  it  ;  and  he  mufl  ' 
be  dell^^ercd  from  further  punilhment  or  elfe  he  is  injured, 
he  is  opprefled. 

Nay  ♦  to  plead  for  mercy  or  favour  in  order  to  his  deli- 
verance, is  not  merely  needlefs  ;  it  is  out  of  character,  it 
is  degrading  himfclf  who  flands  right  \vith  refpe61:  to  the 
law,  to  the  place  of  one  who  is  obnoxious  to  ftili  further 
punilhment.  It  implies  that  he  is  ignorant  of  his  own 
charader  and  relation  to  the  Deity  and  his  law.  Equally 
out  Oi  charafter  ^vould  he  sd:,  if  on  his  deliverance,  he 
Hiould  render  praifc  or  thanks,  either  to  God  the  father, 
or  to  his  fon  Jefus  Chrift.  Surely  a  man  condemned 
by  a  civil  judge,  to  receive  forty  ftripes  fave  one,  after  he 
has  recived  them,  is  under  no  obligation  to  render  praife 
or  thanks  for  his  releafe,  either  to  the  judge  or  to  the  ex^ 
ecutive  officer. 

But  how  are  thefe  things  reconcile  able  with  the  fcrip— 
tures?  Surely  thefe  confequences  fairly  deduciblc  from 
the  hypothefis  under  confideration,  are  entirely  inconfift— 
ent  with  the  gofpel ;  and  the  hypothefi*  itfelf  cannot  con— 
liftently  be  embraced  by  any  believer  in  the  New  Tefta- 
ment. 

Particularly:  This  hypothefis  precludes  all  polli- 
bility  of forglvenefs  of  the  damned,  even,  on  the  fuppofi-* 
tion   that  they  are  finally  to  be  admitted   to  heavenly  hap- 

pinefs. Forgivnefs  implies,    that  the   {inner    forgiven 

is  not  puniiiied  in  his  own  perfon,  according  to  law  and 
juffcice.  But  on  the  hypothefis  under  confideration  in 
this  chapter,  all  the  dammed,  are  in  their  own  perfons 
,  punilhed  according  to  law  and  juilice,  in  that  they  fufFer 
that  puniihment,  which  is  necelTary  to  lead  them  to  re»- 
pentance.  Who  would  think  of  telling  a  man,  who  has 
in  his  own  perfon,  received  the  corporal  punifliment,  to 
,.which  he  had  been  condemned,  that  the  ci'ime  for  which 
he   received   that   punilhment,   is   fireely   forgiven   him  ? 

Th-s 


deferved  hy    the  Wicked,  3 


« 


This  would  be  adding  infult  to  the  rigour  of  juftice.  ■■ 
But  according  to  the  fcriptures,  it  fetms  there  is  no  fal* 
vation  on  the  footing  of  the  law,  or  without  forgivnefs. 
Therefore  either  it  muft  be  made  to  appear,  that  the 
fcriptures  do  admit  the  idea,  that  fome  men  will  be  receiv- 
ed to  heaven  on  the  footing  of  law,  and  without  forgiv-* 
nefs  of  fins  ;  or  the  hypothefis,  tliat  the  puniihment,  which 
is  fufficient  to  lead  to  repentance,  is  the  curfe  of  the 
law,  muft  be  renounced. 

5.  All  men  who  are  by  any  means  brought  to  repent- 
ance, whether  by  the  torment  of  hell  or  any  other  caufe, 
are  on  the  footing  of  juftice  entitled  to  perfecl  fubfequent 
impunity.  By  the  fuppofition,  the  fole  juft  end  of  all  the 
puniftiment  infiicled  by  the  Deity,  is  the  repentance  of  the 
iinner.  But  this  end*  i^  already  obtained  in  all  who  are 
the  fubjecls  of  repentance.  Therefore  to  punifh  them  is 
to  inflicl:  pain  or  mifery  for  no  juft  end  whatever.  But 
that  the  Deity  fliould  infii«fl  mifery  for  no  juft  end,  is  for 
him  to  commit  injuftice  and  wanton  cruelty,  which  is  im- 
poffible.  What  then  is  become  of  the  curfe  or  penalty  of 
the  divine  law  ?  The  apoftle  declares,  '^  Curfed  is  every 
'  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book 
of  the  law  to  do  them.''  This  feems  to  import,  that  eve-^ 
ry  tranfgreflbr  is  expofed  to  a  curfe.  But  he  who 
tranfgrelTes  in  ever  fo  many  inftances,  and  then  whether 
fooner  or  later  repents,  whether  his  repentance  be  ef- 
fefted  by  mercies,  or  by  judgments,  or  by  any  other  caufe^ 
is  expofed  to  no  curfe,  no  puniihment  whatever  ;  nor  can 
without  injuftice  be  made  the  fubjecl  of  any.  On  this 
fcheme,  if  there  be  any  curfe  in  the  law,  it  muft,  be  re^ 
pentance  itfelf .  By  the  curfe  of  the  law,  is  doubtlefs 
meant  the  ill  confequcnce,   to    which  the    fmner  is  by  law 

and  juftice  fubjected,  on  account   of  his  tranfgreifion. 

But  according  to  the  icheme  now  before  us,  repent- 
tance,  whenfoever  and  by  what  caufe  foever  it  may  cxifl 
in  alinner,  is  all  the  ill  confequcnce  (if  it  may  be  fo  call-* 
edj  to  which  he  is  by  law  and  juftice  fubjedied  on  account 
of  any  fm  or  fms.  This  therefore  with  rcfped;  to  him 
is  the  whole  curfe  of  the  lav/,  and  can  this  be  true?  '^Chrift 
hath  redeemed  us  from,  the  curfe  of  the  law,  being  made  3. 
curie  for  us.''  But  hath  Clirift  redeemed  us  from  repent- 
fincep  and  did  heefFed  that  redemption,  by  becoming  him'' 
felf  a  pejiitent  ?         '  F    "  '  6.   Os 


> 


34  BUrc  than  Dlfdflinc 

^.  On  the  hypothefis^  that  no  man  can  be  juflly  pun- 
ifhed  for  any  other  end,  than  his  own  perfonal  good  ;  no 
man  commits  any  fm  or  moral  evil,  by  any  damage  which 
he  does,  or  can  do,  to  any  being  befide  himfelf  ;  and  the 
whole  evd  of  fm  coniiits  in  this,  that  by  it  a  man  does  more 
or  lefs  damage  to  himfelf;  but  he  never  does,  nor  can 
^oiiibly  commit  fin,  by  diflionouring  or  doing  damage  to 
any  other  be^ng  created  or  divine,  only  fo  far  as,  in  the 
fame  acl  on,  he  does  damage   to  himfelf  perfonally   confi-* 

dered.' If  God  never  do  nor  can  juftly  puniih  a   fmner, 

for  any  other  end,  than  to  lead  him  to  repentance  and  to 
promote  his  good  ;  and  if  all  juli  puniiliment  be  a  mere 
difciplme  neceifary  and  v  holefome  to  the  recipient  ;  then 
punifhment  inflidied  for  any  other  end  is  nnjuft.  It 
is  unjuii"  to  punifli  a  linner  on  account  of  any  contempt  of 
the  Deity,  any  oppofition  to  his  deligns,  to  his  caufe  or 
kingdom  in  the  vv  orld,  or  on  account  cf  any  abufes  of 
any  man  or  men,  excepting  fo  far  as  he  damages  himfelf 
at  the  i'ame  time.  If  it  be  juft  to  punifli  a  funier  for  any 
of  thofe  iins,  further,  or  in  any  other  rcfpeci:,  than  as  he 
damages  himfelf;  it  is  juft  to  puniih  him  for  other  end  or 
ends,    than  his  own  perfonal  good  ;  which  is    contrary  to 

the  fuppofition. But  if  it  be  unjujft  to  puniih /or  adtions 

in  any  o^  h  r  refpect  than  as  in  thofe  a6lions  a  man  damages 
himfelf  or  his  own  intereft  ;  if  muft  be  becaufe  there  is 
no  moral  evil  in  thofe  aftions,  on  any  other  account,  or  in 
any  other  view  of  them,  than  that  by  them  lie  does  a  da- 
mage to  himfelf,  an  J  the  whole  evil  of  fm  muft  co  (i.tin 
this,  that  it  is  difads^antageous  to  the  linner's  own  inter- 
elt  or  happinefs.  The  end  of  all  punilhment  is  the  remo-*' 
val  or  prevention  of  evil  :  and  the  evil  to  be  removed 
or  prevented  by  punilhment,  and  which  is  the  only  ground 
of  punifliment,  is  the  only  evil  of  lin.  But  the  hypothecs 
which  we  are  oppofAig  throughout  this  chapter  is,  tliat 
the  only  juft  ends  of  pun'.ihnent,  are  the  repentance  and 
good  of  the  linner  himfelf ;  that  is,  the  removal  or  pre- 
vention of  perfonal  evil  to  the  fmner,  is  the  only  juft  end 
of  puniihing  him.  Of  courfe  this  perfonal  evil  to  the  fin— 
ner,  is  the  only.juft  ground  of  punilliing  him,  and  is  the 
whole  evil  of  fin. 

Now  if  this'be  the  whole    evil  of  fm,  and   it  deferve 
punilhment  on  no   other  account   than  this;  no   wonder 

there 


defet-ved  hy  the  Wicked.  ^ 

there  is  fuch  oppefition  made  to  the  doctrine  of  endlers 
punifhment.  For  truly,  if  the  nature  and  evil  of  fin  be 
fuch,  as  hath  been  juft  now  ftated,  not  only  the  tndUfs  * 
punifliment  of  it  is  unjuft,  but  any  punilliment  of  hov  ever, 
fiiort  duration  is  unjuil ;  becaufe  fm  carries  its  own  full 
punifhment  in  itfelf.  All  that  pmiifliment  which  it  de-* 
ferves,  is  either  contained  in  iln  at  the  time  it  is  commit- 
ted, or  it  follows  afterward,  as  a  natural  end  necelTary 
conf'equence,  without  any  pain  inflicted  by  the  Deity  ;  and 
to  inflict  any  the  leaft  pain  on  the  f inner,   as  a   puniiliment 

of  his  fin,   is  manifeftly  unjult   and  abfurd. If  a  child, 

in  confequence  of  thrufliing  its  finger  into  a  candle,  fliould 
fufFer  great  pain,  furely  it  would  not,  befide  that  pain, 
deferve  chaftiiement :  becaufe  all  the  evil  of  its  iijipru-  . 
dence  conlifls  in  bringing  on  itfelf  that  pain,  and  thatj 
pain  itfelf  is  the  full  punifnment  of  the  imprudence. 
Therefore  to  inflicl  any  further  punifhment  muft  be  unjuft 

and  cruel. —To  apply  this  ;   all  the  moral  evil  of  A\hich 

the  finner  is  puilty,  confifls  in  bringing  pain  or  lofs  ox\ 
Jiimfelf,  and  to  punifh*  him  for  this,  is  as  abfurd,  as  tq 
punifli  the  child  juftfuppofed  ;  or  to  punifn  a  man  becaufe 
lie  will  walk  with  pebbles  in  his  flioes,  will  whip  him- 
felf,  or  will  bring  on  himfelf  the  pain  of  hunger,  by  go-* 
ing  without  his  ordinary  meal. 

7.  On  this  hypothefis,  he  that  rcpcnteth,  fhall  be 
faved,  from  what  ?  from  that  v/ife,  wholefome  and  neccf-^ 
fary  difcipline,  which  cannot  be  juftly  inflicted,  after  he 
becomes  a  penitent ;   or  in  other  words,  he  Ihall  be  faveci 

from  a  punifnment  w  hich  is  entirely  unjufi . 1  herefore 

the  promifes  of  falvation  to  thofe  who  repent,  amount  to 
nothing  more  than  alTurances,  that  God  will  not  abufe, 
injure 'or  rob  them  of  tYicir  perfo?7aI  rights.  But  do  w^ 
want  fo  many  *^  exceeding  great  and  precious  promifes,'^ 
to  aiFure  us  of  this  ?  Or  are  thefe  promifes  fo  exceeding 
great  and  precious,  as  it  feems  they  were  in  the  judgment 
pf  an  apoitle  ?  Have  we  not  abundant  evidence  of  the  fame 
truth,  from  the  moral  rectitude  of  the  Deity,  without  the 
aid  of  even  a  fingle  promiie  ? 

8.  If  the  finner  deferve  no  more  puniftim.ent,  than  is 
ziecefTary  to  lead  to  repentance,  then  he  experiences  much 

Juors 


3^  Mors  than  DtfcipUne 

more  of  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God,  while  he  is^'zw  hdiiL, 
than  he  does  while  he  is  on  earth,  or  than  he  does,  in 
his  deliverance  fro7n  hell.  In  hell  he  enjoys  thofc  means 
of  grace  which  are  far  better  and  more  wifely  and  efFedu- 
ally  calculated  to  fecure  his  everlafting  happinefs,  than 
chofe  means  which  he  enjoys  on  earth.  In  hell  he  receives 
real  and  demonftrative  tokens  of  the  divine  grace  and  mer- 
cy in  that  difcipline  which  is  fo  necelTary  and  fo  happily 
conducive  to  his  everlafcing  happinefs.  But  in  deliverance 
from  hell  on  his  repentance,  he  receives  no  favour ',  his.  de- 
liverance is  a  mere  act  of  juftice  which  cannot  be  denied 
him.  '         , ' 

9.  On  the  fame  hypothefis^  the  curfe  of 'the  law,  and 
the  greateft^  moft  necelTary  and  moit  defipable  mean  of 
grace  with  refpect  to  the  impenitent,  are  one  and  the  fame 
thing.  This  is  fo  plain,  that  not  a  v/ord  need  be  faid  to 
elucidate  it.  Therefore  if  Chrilt*  \vere  to  fave  any  man 
from  the  curfe  of  the  lav/,  he  would  deprive  him  of  the 
beft  mean  of  grace,  which  he  does  or  can  enjoy  ;  and  this 
falvation  itfelf,  fo  far  from  a  bleffing  to  the  finner,  would 
be  an  infinitely  greater  curie,  then  the  curfe  of  the  law  ; 
becaufe  it*  would  deprive  him  of  a  neceifary  and  moft  ex- 
cellent mean  of  grace,  the  punilhment  which  is  hccelTary 
to  lead  him  to  repentance.  IVor  would  the  gift  of  Chrift 
liimfelf,  his  incarnation,  fufferings,  death,  atonement, 
or  any  thing  which  he  hath  done,  or  can  pofhbly  do,  to 
fave  us  from  the  curfe  of  the  law,  be  any  favour  or  blef- 
fing to  the  perfon  to  be  faved,  but  utterly  the  reverfe. 
It  is  evidently  no  bleffing  to  any  man.perfonally,  but  the. 
reverfe,  that  any  meafures  Hiould  be  taken  to  deprive  him 
of  the  bell  and  moll*  neceifary  mean  of  grace,  without 
which  he  would  noc  be  prepared  for  heaven  and  could  not 
be  admitted  to  it. 

10.  The  doctrine,  that  the  finner  deferves  no  more 
punifhrnent,  than  is  neceflary  to  lead  to  repentance,  con- 
futes itfelf  in  this  refpeft  ;  that  v¥-hi]e  it  holds  forth,  that 
no  punilhment  can  jullly  be  infiicled  on  the  fmner,  but  that 
which  is  merely  difciflinary^  at  the  fame  time  it  fuppofes, 
that  fuch  a  punifhment  is  in  fa6l  inflifted  on  all  the  damned, 
as  is  tc/the  higheft  degree   vindictive.     What  is  a  proper 

Tindidive 


defcrved  hy  the  V/icked-  ^j 

vindictive  punifnTnent,  but  that  which  fatisfies  the  demands 
of  law  and  jufiice  ?  But  that  fuch  a  punifhment  is  inflided 
on  all  the  damned,  is  fuppolcd  by  all  who  efpoufe  the 
principle,  which  I  am  nov/  oppofnirr.  Therefore  in  that 
very  doctrine,  in  which  they  mean  to  oppofe  all  vindicUve 
punifhment,  they  in  the  fuUeft  fenfe  hold  it,  by  holding 
that  fuch  punifhment  as  is  conducive  to  the  good  of  tha 
fufFerer,  is  all  which  juflice  admits. 

If  they  fliould  fay,  that  the  puniihraent  of  the  damned 
is  not  merely  vindictive  ;  but  at  the  fam.e  time  difcipiinar}? 
too,  and  therefore  jufc :  though  if  it  v/ere  merely  vindic- 
tive, it  would  be  unjiifi  :  I  anfwer,  the  prefent  queftion 
entirely  refpecls  puniHiment  which  is  merely  difciplinary. 
Therefore  to  allow,  that  the  punifhment  of  the  damned  is 
partly  vindictive,  is  to  give  up    this  queftion,  and  to  fub- 

ftitute  another. Befide  ;  if  a  vindifcive  puniflim.ent  be 

unjuft,*  how  can  it  become  juft  by  being  connecled  v/ith^a 
punifhment,  which  is  juft  ?  To  corredt  a  child,  to  gratify 
a  mahcious  temper,  is  doubtlefs  unjuft.  Nov/,  if  a  man 
correct  his  child  from  two  motives,  partly  from  malice, 
and  partly  from  a  view  to  the  good  of  the  child  ;  the  juf- 
tice  of  his  condud,  fo  far  as  he  is  influenced  by  the  latter 
motive,  can  never  render  his  condud  juft,  fo  far  as  it  pro- 
ceeds from  the  former. 

A  vindictive  punifhment  is  that  which  is  inflicted  v.ith-a 
delign  to  fupport  the  authority  of  a  broken  law,  and  of  a 
difpifed  governmeit  :  And  if  the  punifhment  be  jufl,  it  is 
at  the  fame  time  according  to  the  conduct  or  demerit  of 
the  tranfgrefTor.  This  is  demanded  by  every  law  ;  and  if 
the  law  be  juft,  it  is.juftly  demanded  :  Or  in  other  words, 
fuch  a  punifhment  of  the  traufgre^fion  of  a  juft  law,  as  is 
fufHcient  to  fupport  the  authority  of  that  law,  is  a  juft  pu- 
niihment.  At  the  fame  time  it  is  a  punifliment  as  truly, 
and  to  as  hio-h  a  degree  wndiclive,  as  juftice  will  admit. 
Now  if  that  punifliment  which  is  necelTary  to  lead  the  fm- 
ner  to  repentance,  be  fufficient  thus  to  fupport  the  autho- 
rity and  dignity  of  the  divine  law  and  government,  and 
be  inflided'for  this  end  ;  it  is  to  the  higheft  degree  vin-^ 
dictive,  and  defignedly  vindictive.  If  it  be  not  fuificient 
to  anfwer  thofe  ends^    it    is  not  the  whole  puniflnnent, 

which 


jji  Mori  than  Btfclpline 

which  the  divine  law  and  juflice  demand  :  For  as  I  have 
t)€fore  obferved,  every  jiift  and  wife  law  demands  that 
punilhment  which  is  necefTary  to  its  own  fupport  or  exifL- 
cnce,  and  juftice  and  wifdom  enforce  this  demand. 

Therefore  let  the  advocates  for  univerfal  falvation  mak« 
their  choice.  If  they  Ihall  choofe  to  hold  agreeably  to  the 
prefent  fuppoiitiun,  that  fuch  puniinment  as  is  necelTary 
to  lead  to  repentance,  is  all  that  can  juftly  be  inflicted  on 
the  {inner,  and  that  therefore  it  is  fufficient  to  fupport  the 
authority  and  dignity  of  the  divine  law  and  government  ; 
they  fland  convided  of  holding,  that  the  puniihment  of 
the  damned  is  by  no  means  merel)'  difciplinary,  but  to  the 
higheft  degree  vindicT:ive.  If  on  the  ether  hand,  they 
choofe  to  hold,  that  the  puniiliment  which  is  neceffaiy  to 
lead  the  (inner  to  repentance,  is  not  adequate  to  the  pur-^ 
pofes^  before  mentioned  ;  then  they  muft  renounce  the 
principle,  which  we  have  been  fo  long  confidering,  and 
allow  the  divine  law  does  denounce  a  further  punifiiment, 
than  that  which  is  neceflary  to  lead  the  linner  to  repen- 
tance, and  is  a  mere  difcipline.  Becaufe  the  divine  law 
being  perfectly  jufb,  does  juftly,  and  muft  necellarily  ad-« 
mit  of  that  puniihment,  which  is  fufficient  to  its  own  lup- 
port  or  exiflence. — — Thus  on  either  fuppofition,  they 
mull  renounce  a  very  favourite  tenet. 

II.  With  what  propriet)^  can  we  talk  of  fatisfying  the 
law  by  repentance,  or  by  that  punifliment,  which  is  necef- 
fary  to  lead  to  repentance;  wheii  the  law  fays  not  a  word 
exprefsly  concerning  repentance,  either  in  confequence  of 
punifhment,  or  without  it  ?  By  the  law  is  the  knowledge 
of  fin  ;  but  by  it  we  know  nothing  of  any  gogd,  to  be 
obtained  by  repentance,  whether  in  the  way  of  favour, 
or  in  the  way  of  juftice.  The  doctrine  of  any  advantage 
to  be  obtained  by  repentance,  is  a  doctrine  of  the  gofpel 
only,  not  of  the  law.  Yet  if  it  be  unjuft  to  punifli  a  fm- 
ner  with  any  other  view,  than  to  lead  him  to  repentance, 
this  doctrine  would  undoubtedly  be  found  in  the  law.  The 
Voice  of  the  law  is,  not  curfed  is  every  one  that  tranf-» 
greffeth,  and  doth  not  repent :  But  curfed  is  every  one 
that  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book  of  the 
Uw  to  do  them. 

12.  From 


drferved  by  ihe  Wicked  4^f- 

%i.  From  the  principle,  that  fm  deferves  no  other  pun- 
ifhment,  than  that  which  is  fubfervient  to  the  good  of  the 
fmncr,  it  will  follow,  that  what  wx  call  fin,  is  no  moral 
evil. 

It  feems  to  be  a  didate  of  reafon  and  tJie  common  fenfe 
of  mankind,  that  moral  evil  fhould  be  followed,  or  de- 
ferves to  be  followed,  with  natural  evil  or  with  pain  and 
fliame  :  and  that  this  natural  evil  be  a  real  evil  to  the  fm- 
ner,  an  evil  to  him  on  the  whole.  But  tha«  evil,  which 
is  ncceflary  and  fubfervient  to  a  man's  perfonal  good,  is  to 
him  no  real  evil ;  but  on  the  whole  is,  even  to  \(m\  per- 
fonally,  a  good,  a  bl'^iUng,  and  not  a  curfe.  .  Now  it  is 
not  a  dicl:ate  of  reafon  and  common  fenfe,  that  moral  evil 
deferves  a  bleiling.  That  which  deferves  a  blefling  and 
no  curfe,  is  no  m.oral  evil.  Therefore  if  fin  deferve  no 
other  punifliment  than  that  v.hich  is  fubfervient  to  the 
perfonal  good  of  the  fmner,  it  is  no  m.oral  evil. 

If  it  be  faid  to  be  no  dilate  of  common  fenfe,  that  mo-« 
ral  evil  fhould  be  followed  v/ith  natural  evil :  it  may  be 
anfwered,  that  furely  it  is  not  a  dictate  of  common  fenfe, 
that  it   be   followed,    with    natural   good.     This    would 

imply,      that      it     deferves      a     reward. Nor     is 

it  a  dictate  of  common  fenfe,  that  it  be  followed 
with  neither  natural  good  nor  natural  evil.  This  Vv-ould 
imply,  that  it  is  worthy  of  neither  praife  nor  blame, 
reward  nor  punifnment ;  and  therefore  is  neither  a  mo- 
ral p-ood  nor  a   moral  evil.     Both    which  ccnclulions  are 

o 

abfurd.  '  Therefore  it  remains,  that  it  is  a  dictate  of  rea- 
fon and  common  fenfe,   that  moral  evil  be   followed   with 

natural  evil.. Or  if  it   be    further   urged,  that  it  is   <*i 

diftate-of  common  fenfe,  that  moral  evil  confidering:.  the 
infinite  goodnej s  and  mercy  of  God ,  ihculd  be  followed  with 
no  natural  evil ;  it  is  to  be  obi'erved,  that  this  is  giving  up 
the  ground  of  juflice,  a^d  going  on  that  of  poodnefs  and 
mercy,  vv^hich  is  entirely  foreign  to  the  fiibject  of  this 
chapter.  The  inquiry  of  this  chapter  is  what  lin  deferves 
9n  the  footing  of  juftice^  not  what  it  will  adually  fuffer  cm 
the  footing  the  divine  innnite  goodnefs  and  mercy,  Thi§ 
latter  inquiry  fliall  be  careiully  attended  to  in  its  place^ 
©Jiapter  VIII. 

Again  l 


^6  Mor'/r    than  DtfdpUnf<, 

Agai-^^  ;  Moral  evil  is  in  itfclf,  or  in  its  own  nature, 
odious  and  the  proper  objeCl  of  dil approbation  and  abhor- 
rence. By  its  own  nature  I  mean  its  tendency  to  cvil^ 
the  diihonour  of  the  Deity  and  the  mifery  or  diminution  of 
the  happinefs  of  the  created  fyflem.  Therefore  it  is  not 
injurious  to  the  perfon  who  perpetrates  moral  evil,  to 
difapprove^  hate  and  abhor  it  in  itfelf,  alide  from  all  con- 
lideration  of  the  confequences  of  fuch  difapprobation, 
whether  fuch  confequences  be  to  the  perpetrator  perfonal- 
ly  good  or  bad.  Hence  it  follows,  that  it  is  not  injuri- 
ous to  the  perpetrator  of  moral  evil,  to  manifeft  difapprc— 
bation  of  his  conduct,  fo  far  as  morally  evil,  whether 
fuch  manifefcation  be  fubfervient  to  his  good  or  not. 
And  if y/w  be  a  moral  evil,  it  is  not  injurious  to  the  fmner, 
lioth  to  difapprove,  and  to  manifefl  difapprobation  of  fin, 
v/hether  fuch  manifeftation  be  fubfervient    to  his  good   cr 

not. But  this  diredly    contradifts    the    principle,   that 

fm  deferves  no  other  punifhment,  than  that  which  is  fub- 
fervient to  the  good  of  the  fmner.  For  what  is  puniih- 
inent,  but  a  manifeftation  of  difapprobation,  which  a  per- 
fon vefted  with  authority  has,  of  the  conduct  of  a  fub- 
ject  ?  And  if  it  be  not  injurious  to  the  fmner,  to  difap- 
prove  his  fm,  and  to  manifeft  that  difapprobation,  whe- 
ther it  fubferve  his  good  cr  not ;  then  his  fm,  or  he  on 
account  of  his  fin,  deferves  both  difapprobation,  and  the 
manifeftation  of  difapprobadon,  though  that  manifefta- 
tion be  notfubfervient  to  his  perfonal  good  ;  which  is  the 
fame  thing  as  to  fay,  that  the  fmner  deferves  punifhment, 
whether  that  punifliment  fubferve  his  own  good  or  not. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  it  be  not  juft  to  manifeft  difappro- 
bation offm,  it  is  not  juft  to  difapprove  fin.  If  it  be  not 
juft  to  difapprove  or  to  hate  fm,  aiide  from  the  confidera— 
tion,  that  the  difapprobation  is  conducive  to  the  perfonal 
good  of  the  iinner  ;  then  lin  is  not  in  itfelf,  or  in  its  own 
■  nature  and  tendency,  hateful  or  odious,  but  becomes  odi- 
ous then  only,  vvhen  the  hatred  of  it  conduces  to  the  per- 
fonal good  of  the  iinner.  But  if  fm  be  not  in  itfelf  odi- 
ous, jt  is  not  a  moral  evil;  wiiich  was  the  thing  to  b? 
proved. 

TH;:iis  feeras  to  be  no  way  to   avoid   this   confequenco 

•   feuc 


deferved  by  the  Wicked,  ^» 

but  by  holding,  that  moral  evil  is  not  in  itfelf  odious  and 
abominable,  but  that  it  becomes  odious  then  only,  v  h^n 
the  difapprobation  of  it  fubferves  the  perional  good  of  the 
perpetrator:  which  is  the  fame  as  to  hold,  that  moral  e- 
vil,  as  luch,  is  not  at  all  odious,  but  is  odious  in  this  par- 
ticular cafe  only,  when  the  dilapprobation  of  it  iubferves 
the  good  of  the  perpetrator  :  but  in  ail  other  cafes,  it  is 
a  matter  of  indifferency  at  leaft,  if  not  an  object  of  cordial 
complacency ;  and  therefore  in  all  other  cafes  is  no  mo- 
ral evil. 

On  the  fuppofition  which  I  am  now  oppofmg,  when  a 
man  fins  and  immediately  repents,  he  deferves  no  punifh- 
ment,  becaufe  the  end  of  all  punifliment  is  already  ob-* 
tainedby  his  repentance,  and  a  tendency  of  punifhment  to 
the  repentance  of  the  linner,  which  is  the  only  circum- 
ftance,  on  the  prefent  hypothefis  ^^hich  can  juftify  his 
punifhm.ent,  cannot  now  be  pretended,  as  a  reafon  for 
his  puni/hment.  Therefore  any  punifhment  after  repen- ' 
tance,  muft  be  undeferved  and  unjuft.  But  if  lln  be  a 
moral  evil  or  a  crime,  it  is  in  its  own  nature  difpleafing 
to  God,  and  he  may  juftly  both  be  difpleafed  at  it,  andl 
inanifeft  his  difpleafure  ;  that  is,  he  may  punifli  it,  whe- 
ther the  fmner  repent  or  not,  P^epentance  though  it  is  ^ 
renunciation  of  fin  in  future,  makes  no  alteration  in  the 
nature  of  the  fm  which  is  paft  ;  nor  is  it  any  fatisfaftion 
for  that  fin.  If  it  were,  it  would  be  either  the  curf'^  of  tk^ 
lawy  or  fuch  a  meritorius  acT;  of  virtue,  as  to  balance  ihi? 
demerit  of  fin  :  Neither  of  which  will  be  pretended.  But 
if  the  only  reafon  why  it  is,  or  can  be  juft  for  God  tO' 
lliew  difpkafure  at  fin,  be,  that  the  Imner  may  thereby  be 
led  to  repentance  ;  then  fin  itfelf,  or  the  proper  nature? 
of  fin,  is  not  a  juft  reafon,  why  God  Ijiould  either  be  dif- 
pleafed, or  ibow  difpleafure  at  it.  Impenitence  or  the 
repetition  of  fin  or  the  continuance  of  the  finnerin  >t,  h 
on  this  luppofition,  the  only  juil  rcaibn  or  ground  of  ei-» 
ther  difpleafure,  or  of  any  manifefetion  of  difpleafurs 
at  fin.  Therefore  fin  in  general,  or  fin  as  fuch,  deferve? 
no  difpleafure  or  manifeftation  of  difpleafure  ;  but  fin  in 
fome  particular  cafe  only,  as  when  it  is  perfiiled  in  or  re- 
peated. If  we  fliould  hold,  that  fins  committed  in  the  day 
time,  do  not  defer ve  puniilim^nt ;  but  that  thcfe  which 
are  committsd   in  the    night,  do   defsrve   puniihment,  \ 

G.  thipk 


j^2  Mori:  thil:?  Difclpltn: 

think  it  r/oiild  hz  manifeit  to  every  mm,  that  we  deniecl_, 
that  lin  as  fuch,  and  by  the  general  nature  common  to  all 
fins,  defer ves  punilhment ;  and  that  we  confined  the  defer t 
of  puniihment  to  fomething  which  is  merely  accidental, 
and  not  at  all  ellential  to  fm.  And  is  it  not  manifeft,  that 
the  defert  of  puniiliment  is  as  really  not  extended  to  the 
general  nature  of  lin,  but  is  eonlined  to  fomething  merely 
accidental,  when  it  is  afferted,  tliat  lin  deferves  nopuniih-* 
ment,  unlefs  it  be  followed  with  impenitence  ?  or  unlefs  it 
be  perfiiled  in?  or,  which  is  the  fame  thing,  that  no  pun- 
ilhment is  juft,  except  that  wliich  is  defigned  to  lead  the 
fmner  to  repentance  ? 

If  fni  do  not  by  its  general  nature  defcrve  puniiliment, 
it  does  not  by  its  general  nature  deferve  the  manifeftation 
of  divine  difpleafurs  ;  becaufe  all  manifeflation  of  divine  dif-- 
pleafure  at  iin,  is  punifnment. — Again,  if  iln  do  not  by  its 
general  nature  deferve  the  manifeitation  of  divine  difplea- 
fure,  it  does  not  by  its  general  nature  deferre  difpleafure  it- 
felf :  and  if  fo,  it  is  not  by  its  general  nature  a  moral  evil. 

It  appears  then,  that  on  the  hypothefis  now  under 
conlideration,  lin  deferves  neither  punilhment  nor  hatred, 
and  is  no  moral  evil,  unlefs  it  be  followed  with  impeni- 
tence;  or  unleis  it  be  perfifced  in,  for  at  leaft  lome 
time.  The  nrlt  ait  of  fin  is  no  moral  evil.  But  if  the 
firfl;  acl  be  not  a  moral  evil,  why  is  the  fecond,  the  third, 
or  any  fubfequent  acl?  Impenitence  is  nothing  but  a  repe^ 
tition  or  perfeverance  in  at^sthe  fame  cr  fmiilar  to  that 
of  which  we  do  not  repent.  But  if  the  firfl:  act,  abitracl- 
ed  from  the  fubfequent,  be  not  a  -moral  evil,  whatreafon 
can  be  alligned,  why  the  lubi'equent  HiouM  be  a  moral 
evil?  Thus  the  principle,  that  lin  deferves  puni/hm.ent  io 
far  only,  as  the  punillmient  of  it  tends  to  the  repentance 
and  good  of  the  fmner,  implies,  that  there  is  no  moral 
evil  in  the    univerie,     either    in  the  firfl:  'fin,   or    in  any 

which  follow  ;  no:ie  even  in  impenitence  itfelf. On  the 

other  hand,  if  lin  in  all  inflances  be  a  moral  evil,  it  is 
juitly  to  be  abhorred  by  the  Deity,  vvhether  repentance 
fucceed  or  not :  and  if  it  may  juflly  be  abhorred  by  the 
Deity,  he  may  jtilHy  manilcil  his  rrbhorrence  of  it,  v\'hc- 
ther  repentance  fucceed  or  not.  Bat  to  allow  this,  is  to 
give  up  the  ::r:ncipl.',  that  fui  deferves  no  other  punilh- 
ment, than  that  which  is  fublervient  to  the  repentance 
and  good  of  the  iiirner. 


^.^fcTVcd  hy    ihe  IVicked.  j^^ 

Punishment  is  a  proper  manifeftation  of  dirpleafiu'e^ 
made  by  a  per 'on  in  authority,  at  fome  crime  or  moral  e- 
vil.  If  iin,  though  repented  of,  be  fril  a  moral  evil, 
and  the  juft  objcLC  of  the  divine  difpleafure  ;  Vvhy  is  it  not 
juit,  that  th's  difpleauire  iliouid  be  manifeiled  ?  But  the 
inanifeflation    of  the    divine    difpleafure   at  moral  evil,  is 

punidiment. ^If  on  the  other  hand,   it  be    an   injurious 

treatment  of  a  iinner,  that  the  Dcit/  jQiould,  after  repent- 
ance, manifeil  his  difpleafure  at  him,  on  account  of  his 
Iin  ;  then  doubtlefs  it  is  injurious  in  the  Deity  to  be  dif- 
pleafed  with  him  on  account  of  his  fin,  of  vliich  he  has 
repented.  Again  ;  if  it  be  injurious  in  the  Deity  to  be  dif- 
pleafed  with  a  man  on  account  of  his  fin,  after  he  has  de- 
lifted  from  it  in  repentance,  Vvhy  is  it  not  injurious  to  be 
difpleafed  with  him,  on  account  of  his  paft  iin,  though 
he  is  flill  perHfling  in  fm  ?  If  one  a£l  of  murder  be  not  the 
proper  objed  of  the  abhorrence  of  all  holy  intelligence»> 
creator  and  creatures  why  are  tv/o  or  one  hundred  acts 
of  murder  proper  objects  of  abhorrence.  Add  nought 
to  itfelf  as  often    as  you   pleafe,  you  can   never  make    it 

fomething. So  that  by  this  principle  we  feem  to  be  ne- 

cellarily  led  to  this  conclufion,  that  no  man  on  account  of 
any  fm  v/hatever,  Vv^hether  repented  of  or  not,  can  con- 
fifiently  with  juilice  be  made  the  cbjecl  of  divine  abhor- 
rence or  difpleafure,  and  confequently  that  lin  in  no  in-, 
fiance  whatever   is  a  moral  evil. 

On  the  principle  which  I  am  now  oppodng,  whenever  a. 
man  commits  any  fm,  for  inftance  murder,  neither  God, 
nor  man  hath  any  right  to  maw f eft  difpleafure  at  his  con- 
dud,  or  even  to  be  difpleafed  v/ith  it,  till  two  things  are 
fully  knovvm  ;  {irft  v/hether  the  murderer  do  or  do  not 
repent ;  fecondly,  whether  difpleafure  in  this  cafe,  or  the 
manifeflation- of  difpleafure,  Vv'iil  conduce  to  the  happinefs 
of  the  murderer.  If  he  do  repent,  no  intelligent  being 
hath  a  right,  on  the  footing  of  juflice,  to  be  difpleafed  ; 
nor  even  if  he  be  impenitent,  unlefs  it  be  known  for  a  cer- 
tainty, that  the  difpleafure  of  the  perfon,  who  is  inquir- 
ing vvhether  he  have  a  right  to  be  difpleafed  or  not,  will 
conduce  to  the  rep^intance  and  good  of  the  murderer. 
To  fay  otherwife  ;  to  fay  that  v/e  have  a  right  in  juftice 
to  be  dilpleafed  v/ith  the  conduce  of  a  murderer,  though 
he  docs  repent,  or  though  fuch  difpleafure  does  not  con- 
duce 


^4  More   than  DifcipUne, 

duce  to  his  repentance  and  happinefs,  is  to  give  up  the 
principle  in  queftion.  For  if  we  may  juftly  be  difpleafed 
%vith  his  conduct,  though  he  is  penitent,  or  though  our 
difpleafure  does  not  conduce  to  his  perfonal  happinels  ; 
we  may  juftly  manifeft  our  difpleafure.  But  manifefta- 
tion  of  dilpleafure,  efpeciaily  by  a  ruler,  at  the  mifcon- 
dudl  of  a  Aibje6t,  is  punifliment. 

Once  more  ;  on  the  fuppofition  that  we  have  no  right 
to  be  difpleafed  with  murder,  unlefs  our  diipleafure  con- 
duce to  the  good  of  the  murderer;  if  there  be  any  moral 
evil  or  turpitude  in  murder,  it  confiils  not  in  the  murder 
itfelf,  or  in  the  malicious  aftion  of  murder  ;  but  v.holly- 
in  this  circumftance  attending  it,  that  difpleafure  at  it^ 
-conduces  to  the  perfonal  good  of  the  murderer. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  obje-fled  to,  the  reafcnmg  in  the 
laft  argument,  that  if  it  prove  any  thing,  it  proves  too 
much,  and  therefore  really  proves  nothing  ;  that  If  fm, 
or  any  crime,  do  in  all  cafes,  and  on  account  of  its  ov/n 
nature  and  turpitude,  deferve  difapprobation  ^nd  punifh- 
anent,  it  will  follow,  that  it  deferves  the  fame,  even  after 
it  has  been  puniihed  according  to  ftrift  diftributive  juflice  ; 
ihat  alter  fuch  puniihment  the  nature  of  the  crime  is  the 
fame  which  it  was  before ;  that  the  crime  therefore  is 
ftill  the  proper  object  of  difapprobation,  and  of  the  mani- 
feitation  of  dii'approbation  ;  and  on  the  ground  of  the  pre- 
ceding reafoning;  deferves  an  additional  punifjiment,  af- 
ter it  has  been  once  puriifhed  according  to  {tri6t  diftributive 
juftice  ;  which  is  abfurd. 

To  this  it  may  be  anfwered,  that  a  crime  confidered 
in  connection  with  its  juft  and  full  puniflimcnt,  is  nor 
that  crime  ccnfidered,  in  itfdf,  or  inks  ovjn  nature  7nere- 
iy.  Water  mingled  with  wine,  and  thus  become  a  com- 
pound fubfcance,  is  no  longer  mere  water.  The  prece- 
ding rcaloning  fuppofes,  that  a  crimxe  in  its  own  nature 
and  tendency  deferves  difapprobation  and  the  inanifefta- 
ti on  of  difapprobation.  But  a  crime  taken  with  the  full 
jjunifhment  of  it  which  is  according  to  ftrid  dillributive 
juflice,  and  confidered  in  iliis  complex  view,  or  that 
crime  and  the  juft  puniHiment  of  it  confidered  as  one 
complex  obje<£l,  is  not  that  crime  confidered  /;;  Jtfdf  and 
in  its  oiv;i  nature  merely.  Therefore  although  the  crime 
pnfidered  in  itfelf  deferves  p-umihment,  yet  confidered 
' \^ 


defervcd  by    the   Wicked,  45 

Sn  the  complex  view  j  aft  ftated,  it  defer ves  not    additional 

punifliment.- And  whereas  it  is   implied  in  the   objed- 

ion  now  under  confideration,  that  a  crim_e  even  after  it 
has  been  punifhed  according  to  ftrift  diftributive  juftice, 
isftill  the  juft  objeftof  difapprobation,  and  therefore  that 
disapprobation  may  juftiy  be  manifefted  even  by  the  magi- 
itrate,  or  the  crime  maybe  punifhed ;  it  is  to  be  obferved,  that 
the  whole  force  of  this  reafoning  depends  on  the  mean- 
ing of  the  expreffion,  a  crime  even  (jfter  it  ba^  been  punifh'^ 
ed  according  to  firi£}  diftributive  jufiice,  is  f] ill  the  jiifl  cb- 
jeSi  of  di [approbation.  If  the  meaning  of  that  exprelTion 
be,  that  the  crime  confidered  in  its  own  nature  and  ten- 
dency, and  as  abftracted  from  the  puniiliment  or  any 
thing  done  to  prevent  the  ill  efFed:  of  the  crime,  is  a  pro- 
per object  of  difapprobatiouj  and  is  an  event  mod  ardent- 
ly to  be  deprecated,  or  it  is  moft  ardently  to  be  wiilied, 
that  it  might  never  have  come  into  exiftence,  and  in 
this  fenfe,  it  is  the  juft  objed  of  difapprobation  and  of 
the  manifeftation  of  difapprobation  :  this  is  undoubtedly- 
true,  and  no  ill  confequence  to  the  preceding  reafoning 
w '11  folio v/.  But  if  the  meaning  of  that  exprellion  be, 
that  a  crim.e  confidered  in  connexion  with  its  jail:  punifh- 
ment  and  the  good  effedts  of  that  punifhment,  as  one  com* 
plex  objecl,  is  a  proper  object  of  difapprobation,  io  that  it 
is  proper  to  wifu,  that  this  complex  objetl  had  not  coma 
into  exiftence  ;  it  is  not  true  that  in  this  fenfe  a  crime  af- 
ter it  has  been  punifhed  according  to  ftricl  diftributive  juf- 
3ce,  is  ftill  thejuft  objed  of  difapprobation.  There  have 
doubtlefs  been  many  inftances  of  crimes  in  civil  fociety, 
>vhich  taken  with  the  juft  punifhments  inflicted  on  them, 
have  been  on  the  whole  the  occafion  of  great  good  to  fo- 
ciety, have^  eftablifhed  government  and  preferved  the 
peace,  of  fociety  longer  and  more  effedually,  than  v/ould 
have  been  the  cafe,  had  no  fuch  crimes  been  committed. 
Therefore  the  odftence  of  thofe  crimes  taken  with  the 
punifhments,  as  one  complex  objedl,  is  no  proper  object  of 
difapprobation  or  deprecation,  but  of  accjuiefcence  and  joy  : 
becaufe  in  this  connection  they  tend  not  to  impair,  but 
eftablifli  and  promote  the  general  freed.  In  this  fenfe 
any  crime  or  any  fm,  after  it  has  been  puniflied  according 
to  ftriifl  diftributive  juftice,  is  not  the  juft  object  ofdifap-. 
probation,  and  therefore  not  of  the  m.anifeftation  of  dif- 
approbation 


46  Mof'^   thdM    DirdpUnt 

approbation  or  of  puniilimcnt. So  that   the  foregoing 

reafoning  v/ill  not  prove  that  a  fin  or  crime,  once  pun— 
i/lied  a<:cording  to  ilrict  dhlributive  juftice,  deierves  an 
additional  puniiliment. 

The  effence,  of  moral  evil  is,  that  it  tends  to  impair  the 
good  and  happinefs  of  the  univcrfe  :  in  that  the  odi- , 
oufnefs  of  fm  or  of  moral  evil  confiils.  xA.nd  a  punijhment 
in  the  diilributive  lenie  juil:,  is  that  puniOmient 
iaflitted  on  the  perfon  of  the  finner,  which  elte^Lually  pre- 
vents any  ill  confequence  to  the  good  of  the  uaiverfe,  of 
the  fin  or  crime  piinillied.  i\a\v  therefore  iin  taken 
withthe  juft  punifhment  of  it,  no  more  tends  to  impair 
the  good  of  the  univerfe,  than  poiibn  taken  v/ith  an  ef— 
feclaa]  antidote,  tends  to  deilroy  the  life  of  him  who  takes  it. 

Objection,    i.  ..  If  iin  taken  w\t\\  its  juli  punifhment,   do 
not  tend  to   impair  the  pood  of  the  univerfe,    and  if  the 
silence  of  moral  evil   conhll  in  its  tendency   to  impair  the 
good  of  the  univeric,   ic  feeins  that  fm  taken  with  its  juifc 
puni/hment  is  no  Iin  at  all.    Anfwer  :   It  is  indeed  not  mcrs 
fm.   It  is  no  more  iin,   than  poifon  taken  with  its  antidote^ 
is  poifon.    That  poifon   which  is  mixed  with  the  antidote, 
if  it  were  feparated  from  the   antidote,  would  produce  the 
fame  effec^ts,  is  of  the  fame  tendency,  and  coniequently  of 
the  fame  nature,  as  before  the  mixtm-e.  Yet  the  comipcund 
liiade   by  the  mixture,  produces  no  fuch  efFcfts,    is  of  no 
fuch  tendency,  and  confequently  is  of  a  very  diiferent  na- 
ture.   So  any  fm  which  is  puniflicd   according  to  flricl  ju- 
ilice,    a'Dflracled  from  the  punifiimcnt,  is  of  the  fame  reu- 
cicncy  and.  nature,  cf  wjiich  it  \v  as  before  the  punifhment. 
1  et  that  Iin  taken  vdth  its  full  aud  jult  puniiliment,  as  one 
complex  object,  is  cf  a  v^ry  different  tendency  and  nature, 
and  vvdll  be  followed   with  no  fiLch -efTecls  asvpuid    have. 
followed  from  it,  Iiad  it  not  been  puniihed.    In  this  fenfe, 
fm  taken  v/ith  its  full  and  juft  puniiliment  is   indeed  n» 
fm  at  all. 

Gbjecdon.  2.  If  the  fmner  do  not  deferve  punifnment, 
v/hen  the  ill  confequence  s  of  his  iin  are  prevented  by  his 
peribnal  puniiliment;  why  does  he  deferve  puniilmunt, 
when  the  ill  confequences  are  prevented  by  the  fufFcrings 
of  his  fubliiiute  r Anfwer.  Defert  and  ill  delert  are  ac- 
cording to  tlie  chara6{;er  of  the  pcrfcn  hittifclf,  and  not  acr 
cprdinr  to  that  of  his  reprefcntdtive  or  fubftitutc.  Now 
fatisfaition  for  a  criiue  by  pcrlonal  fii&in^  is  as  really   a 

part 


icftrvetl'hy  ih^  Wicked,  47 

|>art  of  the  criminars  perfonal  charafter,  as  the  criiDC  itfelf* 
Bat  latisfa^lion  by  the  iu.Termg  of  another,  is  no  part  of 
the  perfondl  character  of  the  crimmal. 

If  then  on  the  whole,  it  be  an  eilabhfhed  point,  that  on 
the  fuppofition  that  no  other  punifhinent  can  be  jultly  m- 
flided  on  the  linner,  than  that  which  is  neceilary  lor  his 
repentance  and  happhiels,  iin  is  no  moral  evil ;  this  will 
be  attended  with  many  other  confequenccs  equally,  or  if 
po-Tible,  ftill  more  abfurd  : 

1.  TiTAT  Iin  deferves  no -punifliment  at  all.  Surely  no» 
thing  but  moral  evil  defervei  puni/hment. 

2.  Tha^i'  neither  iinitfeif,  nor  v/e  as  linners  are  the  ob- 
jed:s  of  the  divine  dii approbation. 

3.  That  neither  ought  we  to  difapprove  it,  whether 
in  ourfelves  or  others. 

4.  That  repentance  is  no  dut)?-  of  any  man  ;  yea,  it 
is  pofitive?y  wrong.  Shill  we  repent  of  an  innocent  adlion  ? 

5.  That  the  calamities  vv^hich  God  brings  on  men  in  this 
life,  are  not  reconcileable  with  jidtice.  "ihat  thefe  cala* 
mities  in  general  are  punilhments  or  demondrations  of 
God's  difpleafurc  at  the  Uns  of  mankind,  is  manifefb  front 
the  fcriptnres.  This  is  efpecially  manifeft  concerning  the 
mofl  extraordinary  and  unufual  calamities  which  in  I'crip- 
ture  are  mentioned  to  have  befallen  communities  or  indi- 
viduals ;  as  the  flood  of  Noah,  the  overthrow  of  Sodom, 
and  Gomorrah,  the  dellruclion  of  Jerufalem  and  the  Tern* 
pie  by  the  Chaldeans,  and  afterwards  by  the  P».omans,  the 
death  of  Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram,  of  Nadab  and 
Abihii,  of  Uzzah,  o^c.  &:c.  But  all  thefe  puniihments  were 
unjuft,    ff  fm  be  no  moral  evil. 

6.  That  there  is  no  foundation  in  any  human  adtionS' 
or  chara^ers,  for  praife  or  blame,  reward  or  puniihment. 
If  Tmbe  no  moral  evil,  it  is  not  blameable  ;  and  if  fni  or 
vice  do  not  deferve  blame  or  puniihment,  virtue  which  is 
the  oppofite,  does  not  delerve  praife  or  reward  :  and  all 
moral  difbinflions  are  groundlefs,  as  in  a  moral  view  there 
is  no  difference  between  virtue  and  vice,  fin  and  holinefs* 
Therefore  there  is  no  moral  govermnent  in  the  univerfe^ 
nor  any  foundation  for  it- 

I  NOW  appeal  10  the  reader,  with  regard  to  the  propri- 
ety of  the  preceding  remar]cs,'  and  whetlier  the  ablurdiiie* 
before  ui£utioned,  be  not  indeed  iraplied  in  tlie  hypotbsils^ 


/fi  The  damned  ivUl  in  fa^ 

thst  die  iinner  can,  confiftently  with  juflice,  be  made  i^ 
fufFcr  no  other  punifnment^  than  that  v»hich  is  difciplinary 
cr  conducive  to  the  good  of  thq  fufFercr,  by  leading  him 
to  repentance  and  preparing  him  for  happinefs.  If  thofe 
abfurdities  juftly  follov/,  not  the  leaft  doubt  can  remain, 
but  that  the  principle  from  which  they  follow,  is  abfurd 
and  falfe. 


CHAP.        III. 

Whether  the  damned  ivill  in  fa6l  Ji^ffer  any  other  punijhmenf^ 
than  that  "ujhich  is  conducive  to  their  perfonal  good, 

N  the  laft  chapter  the  fubjecl  of  inquiry  was,  whethei* 
the  damned  iinner  deferve^  according  to  ftrift  juftico 
and  the  law  of  God,  any  other  puniihment,  than  that 
which  is  necedary  to  lead  to  repentance  and  prepare  for 
happinefs.  But  though  it  fhould  be  granted,  that  he  does 
indeed  deferve  a  further  or  greater  puniihment,  than  that 
which  is  fufficient  for  the  ends  juft  mentioned  ;  yet  it  may 
be  pleaded,  that  in  fad  he  never  will  fulFer  any  other  pun- 
iiliment  ;  that  in  hell  the  damned  are  puniihed  with  the 
fcle  defign  of  leading  them  to  repentance  ;  that  when  this 
defign  fhall  have  been  accompliflied,  whatever  further 
puniihment  they  may  deferve,  wjH  be  gracioufiy  remitted, 
and  they  immediately  received  to  celeftial  feheity.  Whe- 
ther this  be  indeed  the  truth,  is  the  fubjed  of  ourprefent 
inquiry. — -With  regard  to  this,  fubjecl,  I  have  to  propofe 
the  following  conliderations. 

1.  If  the  damned  do  indeed  deferve  more  punifhment, 
than  is  fuilicient  barely  to  lead  thern  to  repentance  ;  then 
they  may,  confillently  with  juftice,  be  made  in  fact  to  luf- 
fer  more.  That  they  may  confulently  v.'ith  juftice  be  made 
to  fufFer  according  to  their  demerits,  is  a  feif-evident  pro- 
pofition.  To  punilli  them  fo  far,  is  not  at  all  inconliftent 
with  the  jullice  of  God,  therefore  the  objection  drawn 
from  the  juftice  of  God  againft  vinditlivc  punifliment  as 
oppofed  to  mere  difcipline,  muft  be  v^holly  relinquidied. 
A  merely  difciplinary  puniihment  is  one  which  is  fuited  and 
defiened  to  lead  the  fmner  to  repentance  only.  A  vindic- 
tive punifhment  is  one  which  is  defigned  to  be  a  teftimony 
ef  the  difpieafure  of  God  at  the  conduct  of  the  Iinner,  and 

by 


Jhffer  more  than  Dtfdplhie.  j^(^ 

by  that  tf^ftimony,  to  fupport  the  authority  of  the  divine 
law,  fubferve  the  general  good,  and  thus  fatisfy  juftice  i 
and  itmuft  be  no  more  than  adequate  co  the  demerit  of  the 
finner.  I  do  not  find  that  Dr.  C.  has  in  his  whole  book, 
given  us  a  definition  of  a  vindictive  puniihment,  as  he 
ought  mofc  certainly  to  have  done.  According  to  Che- 
valier Rar,iroy\<;  definition  of  divine  vindictive  juftice,  vin- 
dictive punifliment  is,  ^'  That  difpeniation  of  God,  by 
'^  which  he  purfues  vice  with  all  forts  of  torments,  till  it 
'^  is  totally  extirpated,  deftroyed  and  annihilated."*  What 
then  is  a  difciplinary  puniihment  ?  This  definition  perfectly 
confounds  difciplinary    and  vindictive  puniflnnent. 

If  il  be  jufl  to  punilh  a  iinner  according  to  his  demerit; 
as  it  certainly  is  by  the  very  terms  ;  and  if  fuch  a  punifii- 
ment  be  greater  than  is  fuiTicient  to  lead  him  to  repentance 
merely  ;  as  is  now  Ihppofed  :  then  all  objections  drawn 
from  the  juftice  of  God,  againft  a  vindiclive  punifhment, 
and  all  arguments  from  the  fame  topic,  in  favour  of  a  pun- 
ifliment  merely  difciphnary,  are  perfectly  groundlefs  and 
futile.  The  Iinner  lies  at  mercy  ;  and  if  he  be  releafed 
on  his  repentance,  it  is  an.  a(^  of  grace,  and  not  of  juftice. 
1,  If  the  damned  cIq  deferve  more  puniftjment  than  is 
fufficient  barely  to  lead  them  to  repentance,  they  will  m 
fa^  fuffer  more.  As  it  is  juft,  lo  juftice  will  be  executed. 
That  they  will  be  punifhed  according  to  their  demerits,  is 
capable  of  clear  proof,  both  b}''  the  authority  of  fcripture, 
and  by  that   of  Dr.   C. 

(i)  By  the  authority  of  fcripture. — —This  aniires  us, 
that  God  will  '^  render  to  e-J^ery  man  according  to  his  deeds' 
'^  to  therA  that  are  contentious,  and  do  not  obey  the  truth, 
*'  but  obey  unrighteoufnefs,  indignation  and  v/rath,  tri- 
'^  bulalion  and  anguiih  upon  every  foul  that  doth  evil,^' 
Rom.  XI.  6,  &c.  ^*  For  the  work  of  a  man,  fhall  he  ren- 
*•  der  unto  him,  and  cauie  every  man  to  find  according  to 
his  ways,"  Job,  XXXIV.  i.  '■'-  Thou  reudereft  to 
every  man  according  to  his  work,'"  Pi'al.  LXII.  12. 
I  the  lord  fearch  the  heart,  I  try  the  reins,  q\zt^  to 
give  every  man  according  to  his  ways,  and  according  to 
the  fruit  of  his  doings,"  Jer.  XVII.  10.  See  alfo 
chap.  XXXII.  I  p.  '*  For  the  fon  of  man  ihall  come  in 
*"'  the  glory  of  his  fatlier,  with  his  angels;  and  then  he 
^'  fhall  reward  every  man  according  to  his  v/orks,"  Mati. 

ix  J^'^  V  i  . 

Principles,   Vol.   I,  P.   434, 


5©  The  Damntd  ■will  in  Ta6} 


XVI.  27.  "  Forwemuftall  appear  before  the  JudgmcRt 
feat  of  Chriil ;  that  every  one  may  receive  the  things 
done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whe- 
ther it  be  good  or  bad,"  1  Cor.  V.  !o.  '^Behold 
I  come  quickly ;  and  my  revv'ard  is  with  me,  to  give 
*'  every  man  according  as  his  work  fhall  be,*'  Rev.  XXII. 
12.  '' Agree  with  thiue  adverfary  quickly,  whiles  thou 
'•  art  in  the  way  with  him:  left  at  any  time  the  adver- 
*^  fary  deliver  thee  to  the  judge,  and  the  judge  deliver 
'^  thee  to  the  officer,  and  thou  be  cafl  into  prifon.  Verily 
**  I  fay  unto  thee.  Thou  fliait  by  no  means  come  out 
*'  thence,  till  thou  haft  paid  the  uttermoft  farthing,*'  Mat. 
V.  25,  26.  In  the  parallel  text  in  Luke,  it  is  thus  ex— 
^^  prelTed,  ''I  tell  thee,  thou  llialt  not  depart  thence  till 
"  thou  haft  paid  the  very  laft  mite."  James.  II.  13, 
'*  He  fhall  have  judgment  without  mercy,  that  hath 
*'  ihewed  no  mercy."  Rev.  XIV.  10,  '^Thc  fame  Ihall 
*^  drink  of  the  wine  of  the  wrath  of  God,  which  is  poured 
"  out  without  mixture,  into  the  cup  of  his  indignation? 
'^  and  he  fhall  be  tormented  with  fire  and  brimftone  in 
''  the  prefence  of  the  holy  angels  and  in  the  prefence  of 
'^  the  Lamb ;  and  the  fmoke  of  their  torment  afcendeth 
''  up  for  ever  and  ever." 

Thcle  texts,  it  is  prefumed,  fufSciently  fhew,  that  we  have 
the  authority  of  fcripture  to  prove,  that  in  the  future 
world,  the  wicked  will  be  punifhed  accoding  to  their  de- 
merits,  and  that  no  mercy   will  be  ihewn  them. 

(2)  The  fame  truth  is  evidently  holden  by  Dr.  C- 
He  afferts,  *that  ^'there  viil  be  no  falvation  for  thofe  in 
the  next  ftate,  w  ho  habitually  indulge  to  luft  in  this ; 
but  they  muft  be  unavoidably  miferable,  notwithftand- 
ing  the  infinite  benevolence  of  the  Deity,  and  to  a  great 
degree,  God  only  knows  how  long,  in  proportion  to  the 
number  and  greatnefs  of  the'ir  vires. ^^  jThat  *^fome  of 
them" [the  damned]^ 'ihall  be  tormented  for  ages  of 
ages,  the  reft  varioufly,  as  to  time,  in  proportion  ti 
their  deferts  :^^Th.ut  they  will  fuffer  ^*  fpofitive  tor- 
ments i:4  proportion  to  the  mwiber  and  greatnefs  of  their 
*'  crimes  :"  That  ''**there  will  be  a  difference  in  the  pun- 
"  ifliment  of  wicked  men,  accordin<i  to  the  difference  there 
"  has  been  in  the  nature  and  number  of  their  evil  deeds:" 
That  '*  'j-f  if  they"  [the  bialphmers  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  are 

not 

■^  P.xo.    J  P,   307.      t  P-   25"^-   '''''  ^'    3^^'    tt  P-   33^-- 


i< 


tt 
tt 

Mt 

tt 
t( 
tt 


fuffer  m^re  than  DifcipUne.  51 

^*  not  faved  tiJI  after  they  have  pafTed  through  thefe  tor- 

''  ments"  [of  hellj  ''they  hive  never  been  forgiven 

*'  The  divine  law  has  taken  its  crurfc;  nor  has  any  inter- 
*^  vening  pardon  prevented  the  full  execution  of  the  threat* 
''  ened penalty,*'  Some  obfervations  have  been  already  %% 
made  on  thefe  pafTages  concerning  the  blafphemers  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  to  fhow,  that  on  Dr.  C's  plan  they  equally 
prove,  that  all  the  damned  are  faved  without  forgivcnefs  ; 
that  the  divine  law  has  its  courfe  on  them  all;  that  they 
all  fuffer  the  full  threatened  penalty,  and  of  courfe  they 
fufFer  all  that  punifhment  which  they  deferve. 

The  other  quotations  let  this  matter  in  a  light  equallf 
clear .  If  the  wicked  fhall  be  puniihed  in  proportion  to  the 
number  and  greatnefs  of  their  vices  ;  in  proportion  to  the 
number  and  greatnefs  of  their  crimes  ;  according  to  the  na- 
ture and  number  of  their  evil  deeds  ;  in  proportion  to  their 
deferts ;  they  will  moft  certainly  receive  the  full  punifh- 
ment due  to  them  according  to  their  demerits,  and  nothing 
>'iil  be  remitted  to  them. 

Thus  it  appears  both  by  the  authority  ot  fcripture  and 
alfo  by  that  of  Dr.  C.  that  the  damned  will  actually  fufFer 
all  that  punifhment,  which  they  deferve.  And  as  it  is  now 
fuppofed  to  be  proved  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  the 
damned  deferve  a  further  punifhment  than  that  which  is 
conducive  to  their  repentance  and  perfonal  good ;  of  courfe 
it  follov/s,  that  they  will  in  fact  fuffer  fuch  further  punifh- 
ment. 

Objection. — The  argument  from  the  fcriptural  de-» 
clarations,  that  the  wicked  fhall  be  punifhed  according  to 
their  worlcs  &c,  to  prove,  that  they  will  fufler  all  which 
they  juftly  deferve,  is  not  conclufivc ;  becaufe  the  fame 
expreffions  are  ufed  concerning  the  righteous,  fetting  forth, 
that  they  fkall  he  rewarded  according  to  their  works  kc. 
Yet  it  is  granted  on  all  hands,  that  their  reward  is  not 
merely  fuch  as  they  deferve,  or  is  not  flrictly  according 
to  juflioe. 

An'SWER.  The  reward  of  the  righteous  is  indeed  not 
merely  fuch  as  they  deferve,  but  in^nitely  exceeds  their 
deferts.  It  is  therefore  at  leaft  equal  to  their  deferts ;  or 
it  falls  not  fhort  of  them.  If  this  be  allowed  concerning 
the  puniflnnent  of  the  wicked,  it  is  fuflicient  for  ever>' 
purpofe  of  the  precedir.n^  argument.  If  the  wicked  fuffer 
a  punifhment  at  leafl  equal  to  their  demerits  ;  then  no  part 
of  the  puniHiment  deferved  bv  them,  is  remitted  to  thcni. 
,  Xl  P.   2,  &c,  '  Befick 


52 


The  Damnid"  will  hi  Fact 


a 


Befide  ;  the  declarations  of  fcripture  are,  that  the  wick  cd 
fhall  pay  the  uttermoft  farthing,  the  very  laft  mite  ;  that 
they  ihail  have  judgment  without  mercy,  wrath  with- 
out m  xture,  &c.  which  are  as  ftrong  and  determinate 
exprefiions,  to  reprefent  that  they  will  be  punilhed  to 
th«  full   extent  of  juilice,   as  can  be  conceived. 

3.   Although  Dr.   C.   is  fo  great  an  enemy  to  vindi'fl- 
ive  puniihment;  yet  he  himl^lf^  holds   that  men    do   even 
in  this  life   fuuer  fuch  punifnment.    ^-But  do  thofe     tefti— 
*•    monies  of  his  ve:ig?unce  lofe  their   nature  as  judgmettts 
**    on   his   part,   and   real   evils  on    their's,    becaufe    they 
'''  may  be  an  occafion  of  that  repentance,  which  fhall  ilTue 
^^  in  their  falvation  ?   When   God  threatened  the    Jewifii 
*'  nation,   in  cafe  the-/  would  not  do  his    commandments, 
*^  with  famine,   the  peililence,   the  fword,   and  a  difperiion 
*^  into  all  parts  of  the  earth;   did  he  threaten  them  with 
*•   a  benefit  \      And  when  thofe  threstenings  w^ere  for  their 
**  fms  carried  into    execution,   did  he    inlli-fl  a   hleflng  on 
*^   them  ?    ¥/hen  he  threatened  in    particular,  that  if  they 
where  difobedient,   they    fhould  be  curfed  in  the    field, 
*'  Deut.   XXVIII.    16,   did  he    hereby  intend,    that  the 
*^  field  fliould  be    curfed ;   but    that  he    meant    thereby  a 
*^  real  benefit  to  them  ?"   *  If  vindictive  puniiliment  be  in- 
flicted even  in  this  life,   much  more  may  we  conclude  th;it 
it  is  indicled  in  hell,   the  proper  place  of  retribution  to  the 
wicked. 

4.  If  the  puniihment  of  hell  be  a  mere  difcipline  hap- 
pily conducive  to  the  good  of  the  fuffercrs,  there  is  no 
forgivenefs  in  the  prefervation "  of  a  m.iin  from  it.  It 
is  no  forgivenelfi  for  a  parent  to  give  his  child  a  li- 
cence to  tarry  from  fchool ;  or  for  a  phyfician  to  allow  his 
patient  to  deiift  from  the  cold  bath,  which  he  had  pre- 
fcribed.  Or  if  a  parent,  to  inure  his  child  to  hunger  and 
cold,  have  kept  him  for  fonie  time  on  a  fcanty  diet,  and 
have  clothed  him  but  thinly  ;  it  is  no  aCi- oT  ^Fi^givcnefs, 
to  allow  the  child  in  future  a  full  diet,  c^-Warm-cioth-- 
ing.  Forgivenefs  is  to  remit  a  deferved  penalty,  or  to  ex- 
empt, fro iji  penal  evil;  not  to  deprive  of  a  benefit,  or  of 
any  thing  which  is  abfolutely  necelTary  to  our  liappinefs, 
and  which  is  therei'ore  on  the  whole  no  real  evil,  but  a 
real  good.  If  therefore  there  be  nothing  more  /Jd"?/.'?/ or 
vlndldJive  m    the    puniihment  of  hell,     than    in   the   cold 

.*.^  DiiTertations^      P.    no. 


fuffzr  more  than  Dlfclplhie.  ^3 

bath,  or  in  the  fcanty  diet  and  thm  clothing  jufb  men- 
tioned ;   there  is  no  more  of  forgivenefs  in  exemption  from 

the    former,    than    in    exemption     from    the   latter. 

Thus  the  fcheme  of  difciplinary  punifhment  in  hell  lead? 
to  a  conclulion  utterly  inccniiitent  v/ith  the  v/hole  tcnoif 
of  fcriptui-e,   and  of  the  v/rilings  of  Dr.   C. ,. 

5.  All  tliofe  texts  A^^hicji  fpeakof  the  ^ivme,  vengeance, 
fury^  wrath,  indignation,  fiery  indignation,  Zee,  hold 
forth  fome  other  punifhment,  than  that  which  is  merely: 
diiciplinary.  The  texts  to  vvh^xh  I  refer  areC^ch.as  thcfe  ;• 
Deut.  XXXII.  41, 'Tf  I  whet  my  glittering  fwcrd  and 
*'  mine  hand  take  hold  on  judgment ;  I  .will  render  7;^^?-- 
'*  geance  to  mine  enemies,  and  will  reward  them  that 
hate    me.''      Rom.   III.    5,  6,    *^  Is     God     unrighteous, 

**   who  taketh  z;<f;?^£'^«rd'." '^God  forbid.'"'  Chap.  XII. 

19,  ^*  Vengeance  is  mine:  I  will  rf/);S(y  faith  the  Lord i'^ 
Luke.  XXI.  22,  ^'Thefe  be  the  days  oi  vengeance J^ 
2Thef.  I.  8,  *T.n  flaming  fire  taking  z'fwg-t'.'/.'^rf  of  them, 
that   know  not  God,   and    that     obey    not  the   gofpel  of 

'^  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift." Jude.    7,  ^'Suffering  the 

^^  vengeance  of  eternal  lire." Job.  XX.   23,  '^  When 

*^   be  is  about  to  fill   his  belly,   God  fnall  call    the   fury 

.^'  of  his    wrath    upon  him." Ifai.   LI.    17,  *^A\vake, 

*^  awake,  fiand  up  O  Jerufalem,  which  hafl  drunk  at 
''  the  hand  of  the  Lord,  the  cup  of  his  fury ;  thou  haft 
*•   drunken    the  dregs  of  the  cup  of  trembling,  and  wrurg 

*^  them  out." Chap.   LIX.    18,   ^'' According- to  their 

deeds,   accordingly  he  \7ill  repay  fury  to  his  adveria- 
ries,   recornpence  to  his    enemies"   Sec.   Infcances  of  the 
denunciation  of  wrath  againfl  the  wicked,   are  noted  in  the 

margin.* Rom.   II.    8,     9,     *' Indignation   and  wrath, 

tribulation. and  anguiih,  upon  every  foul  of  man  that  doth 
evil.^'  Heb.  X.  27,  ^^A  certain  fearful  looking  for  of 
*^  judgment,  and  fiejy  indignation,  which  fliall  devour 
^^  the    adverfaries."     See   alfo  Pfal.   L.   22.   Keb.  XII. 

29,  Luke.  XII.   46.- Rev.  XIV.  10.   '^ Shall  drink  of 

the  wine  of  the  wrath  of  God  poured  out  without  mixture, 
into  the  cup  of  his  indignation.^^  Therefore  in  the  punifli- 
ment  of  the  wicked  there  v/ill  be  no  mixture  of  mercy  or 
forgiyenefs. 

It  is  of  no  importance,  that  in  fome  of  the  texts  nov/  quot- 
ed,   a  reference  is  not  had  to  the  punifiiments  of  the  future 

world 
*Matt.  III.  7.  Luke  III.   7,  XXI.  23.       John  III.  36, 
Rom.  IV.   15,  V.  9.  IX  22.   I  Tef.  I.    10.  V.  9. 


a 


54  ^^*  Damned  will  in  Fact 

world,  but  to  thofe  of  this  life.  If  God  can  csnfiftently 
with  his  perfed:ions  inflid  a  partial  vengeance,  why  not 
the  whole  of  that  which  is  jufUy  due  ?  If  he  c;m  and  does 
iniiidfc  vengeance  in  this  life,  why  not  in  the  future  too, 
provided^  as  is  now  granted,  it  be  juft? 

That  the  palFages  now  quoted,  do  indeed  fpeak  of  < 
puniihment  more  than  merely  difciplinary,  is  manifeit  by 
the  very  terms  of  the  paflages  themlelves.  To  fay  «thac 
vengeance y  ''.v-'athy  fury,  indignation,  fiery  indignation,  wrath 
•without  mixture^  mean  a  m-^re  wholefome,  fatherly  difci- 
piine,  defigned  for  the  good  only  of  the  fubjeccs,  is  to  hj 
that  the  infpired  writers  were  grollly  ignorant  of  the 
proper  and  comrnon  ufe  of  language  ;  and  particularly 
that  they  v/ere  wholly  ignorant  of  that  important  dii'- 
tinflion  betv/een  vindictive  and  -difciplinary  puniiliment, 
on  which  Dr.  C.  and  other  writers  of  his  clafs  fo  much 
infift.  If  vengeance  m.ean  fatherly  difcipline,  v/hat  is  pro- 
per vengeance  ?  If  it  be  proper  to  call  fatherly  chaftife- 
inent,  vengeance,  wrath,  fury,  fiery  indignation,  wrath 
without  mixture  ;  by  what  name  is  it  proper  to  call  a 
punifnment  realiy  vindidive  ? 

6.  The  fame  may  be  argued  from  various  other  pafTagv 
cs  of  fcripture,  fome  of  which  I  fliall  now  cite,  i  Cor. 
XVI.  22.  ^'  li  any  man  love  not  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift, 
'^  let  him  be  anathema  maranatha.*'  It  is  abfurd  to  luppofe, 
that  this  curfe  means  a  difcipline  defigned  for  the  good  on- 
ly of  the  patients.     Such  a  difcipline  is  fo  far  from  a  curfe, 

that  it  is  a    very   great    bleiIii>g.-= Deut.   XXVII.   16, 

campared  with  Gal.  III.  10,  *' (Ti^/y^r/ be  he  that  confirm - 
"  eth  not  all  the  words  of  this  law,  to  do  them.''  Deut. 
XXIX.  19.  ^'  And  it  come  to  pafs,  when  he  heareth  the 
*'  words  of  this  curfey  that  he  blefs  himfeif  in  his  heart, 
**  faying,  I  ihali  have  peace,  though  I  walk  in  the  imagi- 
'^  nation  of  my  heart,  to  add  drunkennefs  to  thiril.  1  he 
*=*'  Lord  will  not  /pare  him,  but  the  anger  of  siie'Lord  and 
'*^  his  jeahufy  (hall  frnoke  againft  that  man,  and  all  the 
^^  curfes  that  are  written  in  this  hooky  fliall  lie  upon  him,  and 
''  the  Lord  will  hlot  out  his  name  fromunder heaven.  And  the 
*^  Lord  ihali  ieparatc  him  unto  evil,  out  of  all  the  tribes  of 
**'  Ifrael,  according  to  all  the  curfes  oi  the  covenant,  that 
^'  are  \^Titten  in  this  book  of  tSe  law." — -This  text  feems 
tpo  be  in  feveral  refpefls  i-nconfiftent  M-ith  the  idea,    that 

the 


fiiffer  imrs     ihan  Difci^line,  55 

the  fiitvu'e  punifhment  of  the  finner  is  merely  dlfciplinary. 
It  declares,  that  *'  the  Lord  will  nor  fpare  him.'^ 
But  to  infiici  that  punilhment  onh/,  which  is  far  lefs  than 
the  (inner  deferves,  and  which  is  not  at  all  vindictive,  but 
wholly  conducive  to  his  good,  is  very  greatly  to  jpars 
him.  It  is  further  faid,  that  the  *^  anger  of  the  Lord  and  hij 
*'  jealozify  {liuWfiiioke  againft  him  :"  which  is  not  an  ex- 
prelTion  properly  and  naturally  reprefenting  the  difcipline, 
which  proceeds  from  parental  affecftion  feeking  the  good  on* 
ly  of  the  child.  The  fame  may  be  obferved  of  this  ex* 
pi'cfTion,  '^  The  Lord  fliiall  blot  out  his  name  from  under 
*'  heaven."     It  is  added,  ''  JII  the  curfss  that  are  written 

**  \n  this  book  fhall  lie  upon  him'^ '^  And  the  Lord  fhall 

*■'  feparate  him  unto  evil — according  to  ^//  the  cur/es  of  chtt 
*'  covenant,  which  are  vv'ritten  in  this  book  of  the  law.^'' 
Thefe  lail  exprefiious  feem  to  be  very  determinate.  Ckf/^ 
fis  are  not  bielFrngs  :  but  that  difcipline  which  is  fubfervient 
to  the  good  of  the  fubjecl:  is  a  blelfmg.  The  curfeshere 
mentioned  are  all  the  curfes  written  in  this  book  of  Mofes, 
or  the  book  of  the  Law,  Therefore  fome  men  will  fufFer 
the  curfe  of  the  law,  even  the  whole  curfe  of  the  law,  or 
all  the  curfes  mentioned  in  the  law  ;  which,  by  what  has 
come  tip  to  our  view  in  the  laft  chapter,  appears  to  be 
more  than  a  difcipline  promoting  the  good  of  the  fubje(^. 

Again  ;  Deut.  XI.  26 — 20,  '^  Behold  I  fet before  you 
**  this  day  a  blt-JJlng  and  a  cwfs.  A  blcfling,  if  ye  will 
*'  obey  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  your  God,  which 
^  I  command  you  this    day  ;   and  a  curfe,  if  ye  will  not 

^  obey  the  com.mandments  of  the    Lord  your  God." 

Prov.  III.  33,  **  The  curfe  of  the  Lord  is  in  the  houfe 
^  of  the    wicked  ;  but   he   blej^[}th   the  habitation  of  the 

*^  juft." .Job  XXIV.    18,  *^  Their  portion  Iscurfedm 

^  the  earth." Pfal.  XXXVII.   22,  ''  They    that  be 

*'  curfedoi  him,  Ihall  be  cut  oiF." Pfal.  CXIX.   21, 

*'   Thou  haft  rebuked  the  proud,  that  are  accurfedJ^ 

Jer.  XL  3,  *'  Curfcd  be  the  raan  that  obeyeth  not  the 
**  words  of  this  covenant.,"  Ibid.  chap.  XVIl.  /;, 
^  Curfedy  be  the  man,  that  trufteth  in  man,  and  maketh 
*'  fiefh  his  arm."  ivL:!.  I.  14,  •' rz<?y?^' be  the  deceiver,'^ 
lic'  Chap,  III.  9,  **  Ye  are  curfcd  with  a  curfe."  2 
Pet.   II.    14,  ^' r.V'.^y I'/ children." 

By  *U  thefe  texts  it  appears,  that  forn?  i^ien  do  or  ihiall 


56  '  Tht  Damned  will  In  Fa6} 

fuiFer  the  cnrle  of  God.  "Whether  all  thefe  texts  refer  td 
d  curfe  to  be  infildled  after  death,  does  not  for  reafons  al- 
ready given  materially  afFecl  the  prefent  argument.  A 
curfe  i«  undoubtedly  a  puniflament  which  does  not  promote 
the  good  of  the  fabjecl  :  othervrife  a  curfe  and  a  blelling 
are  perfeilly  confounded. 

If  it  fhail  flill  be  iniifred,  that  the  curfe  fo  often  men- 
tioned, means  that  punilhment  only^  which  is  conducive 
to  the  good  of  the  fubjecl :  it  may  be  anfwered.,  then 
there  would  be  no  impropriety  in  calling  the  prefent  af- 
fiitlions  of  the  real  difciples  of  Chrift,  by  the  name  of  a 
curfe .  'V'Jtij  then  are  they  not  fo  called  in  fcripture  ? 
Why  are  not  the  real  children  of  God,  even  the  rnoft  vir- 
tuous and  pious  of  them,  faid  to  be  curfed  by  God,  &c.  ? 
And  why  are  not  the  curies  of  the  wicked,  as  well  as  the 
afiiiccions  of  the  rifrhteous,  laid  to  work  tocrether  for  their 
good,  and  to  v/ork  out  for  them  a  far  more  exceeding 
ani  eternal  weight  of  glory  ?  Dr.  C.  loves  to  iiluitrate 
the  punilhment  of  hell  by  the  difcipline  inflided  by  fathers 
on  earth  with  a  fole  view  to  the  good  of  their  ch'ldren. 
But  would  it  be  proper  to  call  the  neceifary,  wife  and 
wholefome  difcipline  of  earthly  parents,  by  the  name  of  a 

curfe  ?   or  is  it  ever  fo  called,  either  by  God  or  man  ? 

Equally  abfurd  is  it,  to  call  the  punifliment  of  hell  by 
that  name,  if  it  be  defigned  for  the  good  only  of  the  pa- 
tients. 

I  befeech  the  reader  to  confider  what  a  contrafl:  there 
is  between  the  texts,  which  have  now  been  quoted,  and 
thofe  in  vvhich  a  punifliment  really  difciplinary  is  mention- 
ed and  defcribed.  In  the  former  the  punifhment  is  called 
by  the  names  of  vengeance,  fury,  ivratk,  fmoaking  wrath, 
fiery  indtgymiton,  wrath  'without  mixture,  a  curfe,  an  ana- 
thema, all  the  curfes  of  the  laiv^  be.  Whereas  the  real 
'difcipline  of  God's  children  is  called  a  chafiifemtnt ;  *'  If 
*'  ye  be  without  chaftifement,  then  are  ve  baflards  and 
'^  not  fons  :'*  a  corre6}ion  ;  *^  I  will  correv^  thee  in  mea- 
^^  fure,  and  will  not  leave  thee  altogether  unpunilhcd.''  This 
correction  is  faid  to  be  mingled  loith  pity.  *'  Like  as  a  father 
*-  pitieth  his  children  ;  fo  the  Lord  pitieth  them  that  fear 
**  him.''  ''  I  will  viiit  their  tranfgreifion  with  ihe  rod, 
'^  and  their  iniquity  with  ftripes,  neverthelefs,  my  loving 
"  kindnefs  v/ill  I  not  utterly  tr.ke  frem  him.''     But  where 

in 


fuffer  more  than  DifcipUnf,  cy 

in  all  the  fcriptures  is  the  puniihment  of  the  future  ftate 
Teprefented  to  be  deligned  for  the  good  of  the  fubjeds  ? 
Where  is  it  in  fcripture  called  a  fatherly  chailifement,  cor- 
rection or  difcipline,  or  by  any  other  appellation  of  the  like 
import  ?  V/hat  right  then  have  we  to  conlider  it  as  a  mere 
chaftifement  ?  Is  not  this  an  idea  formed  in  the  fond  ima- 
gination of  thofe  who  would  fain  fupport  a  favourite  fyf- 
tem  ? 

7.  If  future  puniihment  be  merely  difciplinary,  the 
difcipline  will  produce  its  propter  effect  on  fome^  fooner 
than  on  others.  Some  who  fliall  in  this  life  have  contract- 
ed a  lefs  degree  of  depravity  and  hardnefs  of  heart,  will 
be  mc^'e  eafily  and  fpeedily  brought  to  repentance,  than 
others.  This  on  the  hypothefis  now  made,  is  both  agree- 
able to  the  dictates  of  reafon,  and  is  die  very  doctrine  ex- 
preilly  and  abundantly  taught  by  Dr.  C.  But  how  is  this 
to  be  reconciled  with  the  account  of  fcripture  ?  That  in- 
forms us,  that  all  thofe  on  the  left  hand  of  the  judge  are 
to  be  fentenced  to  everlafting  fire,  and  fhall  go  away  into 
everlafting  punifliment.  The  fentence  denounced  on  all  is 
in  the  fame  terms,  and  not  the  leaft  intimation  is  given, 
that  fome  of  them  fhall  be  puniflicd  longer  than  others  ; 
much  lefs  that  only  fame  fhall  be  punifhed  for  ages  of  ages  ; 
others  releafed,  in  a  much  fhorter  time.  Dr.  C.  and 
other  writers  of  his  clafs  fuppofe,  that  in  hell  the  wicked 
are  put  under  thofe  means  of  grace,  which  are  vailly  more 
advantageous,  powerful  and  conducive  to  the  efFedt  of  re- 
pentance, than  thofe  means  which  are  enjoyed  in  this  life. 
But  the  fame  writers  will  allow,  that  in  many  inflances, 
even  the  means  which  are  enjoyed  in  this  life  are  followed 
with  the  defired  effect  of  repentance,  and  this  within  ^o 
fhort  a  term  as  threefcorc  years  aad  ten.  Therefore  v/e 
may  reafonably  conclude  that  within  the  like  term,  many 
more  will  be  brought  to  repentance  by  the  vafcly  m-ora 
powerful  means  to  be  ufed  with  the  damned  :  and  fo  on 
through  every  fucceflive  period  of  feventy  years.  I  think 
then  an  anfwer  to  two  queftions  may  jailly  be  demanded 
of  any  one  in  Dr.  C's  fcheme. 

(i)  With  what  truth  or  propriety  can  a  fentence  of 
everlafting  punifliment  be  pronounced  on  the  whole  body 
of  Tinners,  when  fome  of  them  fhall  repent  and  be  faved 
very  foon  ;  others  in  largie  numbers_,  iu    every  fucceeding 


*8  The  damned  will  tn  Faci 

age,  and  even  every  year  ?  As  well  might  a  fentence  of 
exclufion  from  pardon  and  the  favour  of  God  during  this 
life,  be  pronoanced  againil  the  whole  of  every  generation 
of  mankind,  becaufe  fome  men  do  indeed  continue  in  that 
ftate  during  this  life.  Nay,  with  much  greater  truth 
and  propriety  might  this  latter  fentence  be  pronounced, 
than  the  former ;  becaufe  it  is  granted  by  Dr.  C.  and 
others,  that  the  greater  part  of  men  live  and  die  in  impe- 
nitence and  aUenation  from  God.  Whereas,  allowing  that 
the  punilhment  of  the  wicked  is  a  mere  difcipline,  we  may 
prefume,  that  very  few  indeed  of  the  whole  number  of  the 
damned,  will  remain  in  torment,  for  that  duration,  which 
according  to  the  ideas  of  our  opponents,  is  intended  by 
everlajthig  2.i\6.  for  ever  and  ever,  and  which  is  the  longeit 
punillmient  to  be  infiicled  on  any  of  the  human  race. 
This  is  a  puniihment  referved  for  a  very  few,  the  moil 
denraved,  liardened,  abandoned  linners,  perhaps  one  in 
a  thoufand  or  ten  thoufand.  The  reft  lefs  hardened  and 
more  eafily  wrought  on  by  the  powerful  meajiis  of  grace 
ufed  with  the  damned,  will  be  brought  to  repentance  by 
a  punilhment  of  iliorter  continuance. 

I  know  Dr.    C.   fays,   that  though  all  the  damned   jfhall 
not,  yet    as    fome   of  them  fiiall,    fuffer  that  puniihment, 
which    in  his  ienfe,  is  everlailing  and    forever   and  ever, 
therefore  everlailing  punifiiment  may  be  truly  afferted  of 
them  colledively."    But  the  fame    reafon   would  jullify   a 
fentence  excluding  the  whole  human  race  from  pardon  and 
the  divine    favour,  during  the  whole  of  the    prefent  life. 
God  might  with  the  fame  truth  and  propriety  have  faid  to 
Adam  and  all  his  poilerity,  even    after    the   revelation    of 
the  covenant  of  grace,   ?  doom  you,  in  righteous  judgment, 
to  live  and  die  the  obje6ls  of  my  \yrath.     This   latter  fen- 
tence would,  for  the  reafon  before  aillgned,  have  been  not 
only  equally,  but  much  more    conformed  to  truth  and  fa c% 
than  that  which  fhall  be  pronounced  on    the  wicked  at  the 
end  of  the   world  ;   if  they   fhall  be  delivered  out  of  hell 
from  time  to  time  in  every  age   and  perhaps   every  year. 
Yet  it  is   prefiimed,   no    man  will  plead  for  the  truth  and 
propriety  of  the  fentence  jufl  fuppofed. 

(2)  The  other  queftion  to  which  an  anfwermay  be  ex- 
pelled, is,  how  has  it  come  to  pais,  that  no  intimation  of 
a   diiference    in  the  duration  of   the    punifliment  of  the 

v/icked ; 


'  fuffer  7nore  tha-n  Dlfdplhie,  5a 

wicked,  is  hiiited  in  any  part  of  the  fcriptures  ?  The  dif<«» 
ference  between  a  punifliment  of  a  few  years,  and  one 
which  is  to  lafl  for  ages  of  ages,  or  for  fuch  a  duration,  as 
may  with  propriety  be  called  an  eternity,  is  very  great, 
and  we  /hould  think^  well  worthy  to  be  noticed  in  the 
fcriptures.  To  fay,  that  it  is  noticed  in  thofe  texts, 
which  inform  us,  that  the  ^\'icked  dial!  be  puniflied  ace  or-' 
ding  to  their  luorks,  he.  is  to  beg  a  point  in  dii'pute  :  be- 
caufe  thofe  who  believe  endlefs  punidiment,  believe  that 
the  works  of  all  finners  deferve  an  endlefs  puniflnnent  ; 
and  though  they  will  fuffer  different  punilliments  accor- 
ding to  their  different  demerits  ;  yet  the  difference  will 
not  confii^  in  duration,  but  in  degree  :  as  the  righteous 
will  be  rewarded  differently  according  to  their  vv^orks  ; 
yet  the"  revv^ard  of  every  individual  of  the  righteous  will 
be  of  endlefs  duration. 

■  8.  If  future  puniihment  be  defigned  as  a  mere  difcipline, 
to  lead  finners  to  repentance,  it  is  inflicled  without  any 
neceiiity,  and  therefore  mufbbe  a  wanton  exercife  of  cru- 
elty.  Y\ic  repentance  of  fnmers  maybe  eafily  obtained 

without  thofe  dreadful  torments  endured  for  ages  of  ages. 
Doubtlefs  that  fame  wifdom  and  power  which  leads  a 
goodly  number  of  mankind  to  repentance  in  this  life, 
without  the  help  of  the  torments  of  hell,  might  by  the  like 
or  fuperior  means,  produce  the  like  effecT:  on  all.  1  he 
gofpel  mj'glit  have  been  preached  to  ail  the  heathens,  and 
:ill  thofe  means  of  grace,  which  have  been  fuccefsfu)  on 
fome  men,  might  have  been  ufed  with  all.  And  who 
will  venture  to  fay,  that  thofe  means  and  that  grace, 
w^hich  effciffted  the  repentance  of  Saul  the  perfecutor,  of 
the  thief  on  the  crofs,  of  Mary  Magdaleney  and  of  the  old, 
idolatrous  Manajfeh  who  had  filled  Jerufalem  with  inno- 
cent blood  ;  could  not  have  effected  the  repentance  of  any, 
or  at  leafi;  fome  of  thofe  who  have  been,  or  ihall  be,  fent 
into  the  future  ftate  of  punifhment  ?  How  does  it  appear, 
that  thofe  means  and  that  p-race  which  were  fufficient  for 
the  converfion  of  thofe  noted  linners  before  mentioned, 
v/ouldnot,  had  they  been  applied,  have  been  fafiidient 
for  the  converiion  of  thoufands  of  others,  v/ho  in  fact  have 
not  been  converted  ?  And  hcv/  does  it  appear,  but  that 
ilinilar  though  more  powerful  grace  and  means,  which  are 
doubtlefs  within  tlie  reach  of  divine  pov/er  and  know- 
ledge, 


6b  The  chjnned  willm  Facf 

ledge,  would  have  been  fufficient  for  the  repentance  and 
converfion  of  al]  mankind  ?  If  fo,  the  repentance  of  fm- 
ners  might  have  been  accompUnied,  at  a  cheaper  rate, 
and  in  a  way  more  demonflrative  of  the  divine  goodnefs, 
than  by  the  awful  means  of  hell-torments.  Thofe  tor- 
ments therefore  are  inflicled  without  any  real  neceflity, 
uhlefs  they  be  inflided  for  fome  other  end,  than  the  re- 
pentance of  the  damned. 

I  AM  aware,  it  will  be  objected,  that  if  God  Ihould  bring 
men  to  repentance  by  efficacious  grace  or  means,  itv.ould 
be  incomillent  with  their  moral  agency,  would  deftroy 
their  liberty,  and  reduce  them  to  mere  machines.  But 
Vv^er.e  Pauly  Mary  Magdah*ie  &c.  brought  to  repentance 
in  fuch  a  way  as  to  deilroy  their  liberty  ?  It  will  not  be 
pretended.  Neither  can  it  be  pretended,  chat  the  fame 
means  and  grace  would  have  deftroyed  the  liberty  of 
others.  This  being  granted,  it  necelTanly  follows,  that 
if  repentance  be  the  only  end,  hell— torments  are  arbitra- 
rily infiicled  on  all  thofe,  who  might  have  been,  or  may 
in  future  be  brought  to  repentance  by  thofe  means,  and 
that  grace,  by  which  Paul  or  any    other    man   hath   been 

brought  to  repentance  in  this  life. 1  ailv,  does  God  in 

this  life,  apply  all  thofe  means  and  all  that  grace,  to  all 
men,  to  lead  them  to  repentance,  which  are  confiflent 
with  their  moral  agency  ?  And  if  he  apply  to  any  man, 
more  povvcrful  means,  or  more  efficacious  grace,  than  he 
does  apply  to  him,  would  he  deftroy  all  his  hberty  and  re- 
duce him  to  a  mere  machine  ?  If  fo,  then  how  are  the 
more  powerful  means  of  hell-torments  confifient  with  mo- 
ral agency  or  liberty  ?  They,  it  is  faid,  are  more  power- 
ful and  eiiicacious  means  of  grace,  than  any  employed  in 
this  life:  and  if  in  this  life  the  utmofi:  is  done  to  lead  tin- 
ners to  repentance,  which  is  confulent  with  moral  agency  ; 
hell-torments  mufl  entirely  deftroy  moral  agency  and  re- 
duce poor  damned  fouls  to  mere  machines  ;  and  of  courfe 
they  will  be  no  more  capable  of  repentance  or  falvation, 
thin  clocks  and  v/atches. 

If  on  the  other  hand  it  be  faid,  that  the  utmoft  which  is 
connilent  v/ith"  moral  agency,  is  not  done  in  this  life,  to 
lead  men^  to  repentance  ;  it  will  follow,  that  God  choofes 
to  inflict  hcli-torments,  not  merely  as  a  neceffiiry  mean  to 
lead  llnhers  to  repentance  ;   to  grant  vv^hich,  is  to   give  up 

the 


fuffer  mors  than  Difctpllne.  6x 

the  whole  idea,  that  they  are  merely  difciplinary. 
Thole  whom  I  am  now  oppoling,  hold,  that  God  can- 
not, coDliftently  with  their  moral  agency,  bring  all  men 
to  repentance  in  this  life.  How  then  can  he,  confiflently 
with  their  moral  agency,  bring  them  to  repentance  in 
hell  :*  If  thofe  means  which  would  be  effectual  in  this  life, 
would  be  inconfiftent  with  moi  al  agency,  why  are  not  hell- 
torments  equally  inconfiftent  with  moral  agency,  fnice  it 
is  allowed  that  they  will  be  effeftual  ?  Or  if  thofe  means 
which  are  barely  effedbual  in  hell,  be  not  inconfiftent  with 
moral  agency^  I  wifh  to  have  a  reafon  alTigned,  why  thofe 
means  which  would  be  barely  efFeftual  in  this  life,  would  bs 
any  rnore  inconfiftent  with  moral  agency. 

Dr.  C.  and  others  hold,  that  to  fay,  that  God  cannot 
confiftently  with  morsl  agency,  or  in  a  moral  way,  bring 
men  to  repentance  in  hell,  is  to  limit  his  power  and  wif- 
dom.  But  to  fay,  that  God  cannot,  confiftently  with 
moral  agency,  bring  m^en  to  repentance  in  this  life,  as 
really  implies  a  limitation  of  the  divine  pov/er  and  wif- 
dom,  as  to  fay,  that  he  cannot,  confiftently  with  moral 
agency,  bring  thejti  to  repentance  in  hell.  How  is  it  any 
more  reconcileable'  with  thofe  divine  perfections,  that  he 
cannot  reduce  a  (inner  to  repentance,  in  threefcore  years 
and  ten,  than  that  he  cannot  produce  the  fame  effed:, 
throughout  eternity  ?  To  fay,  that  there  is  not  time  in 
this  life,  for  the  fmner  to  obtain  a  thorough  conviclion  of 
the  nccelTity  of  repentance,  affords  no  relief  to  the  difficul- 
ty. For  though  it  ihould  be  granted,  that  there  is  not 
time  for  the  (inner  to  obtain  this  conviclion  by  experience, 
which  however  there  feems  to  be  no  neceflity  of  grant- 
ing ;  yet  cannot  God  exhibit  the  truth  in  fuch  a  manner, 
as  to  produce,  that  convidtion  ?  And  let  a  reafon  be  given, 
v/hy  that  conviction  produced  by  a  clear  divine  exhibition 
of  truth  and  a  fenfc  of  happinefs  and  mifery,  fet  in  fuch 
a  light,  as  to  lead  to  repentance,  is  more  inconfiftent 
with  moral  agency,  than  the  fame  convici:ion  obtained  by 
experience,  or  by  the   torments  of  hell. 

If  hell--torments  be  neceffary  to  lead  fmners  to  repent- 
ance, becaufe  they  are  more  painful,  th:in  the  affliclions 
or  other  means  ufed  with  men  in  this  life  ;  vvhy  are  not 
greater  afflidions  fent  on  men  in  this  life  ?  It  is  manifeft, 
that  moft  men  might  fuffer  much  greater  affliclions,   than 

they 


()2  The  damned  will  In  Fa6i 

they  really  do  fiifFer.  And  if  greater  pain  be  all  that  is 
wanting  to  lead  them  to  repentance,  it  feems  that  to  in- 
flict that,  would  be  the  greateft  inftance  of  gooduefs^  and 
anight  fuperfede  the  ncceihty  of  hell—torments. 

It  is  granted  by  Dr.  C.  and  others,  that  hell-torments 
will  certainly  lead  to  repentance  all  who  fulfer  them. 
At  the  fame  time  he  objects  to  the  idea  of  leading  linners  to 
repentance  by  the  efficacious  grace  of  God,  thai  it  dedroys 
moral  agency.  But  if  there  be  a  certain  eftablifl :ed/un. 
failing  connection  between  hell-torments  continued  for 
a  proper  time,  and  repentance ;  thofe  torments  as  effec- 
tually overthrow  moral  agency,  as  cfncacious  grace.  All 
that  need  be  intended  in  this  inftance,  by  efiicacious  grace, 
is  fuch  an  exhibition  or  view  of  the  truth  and  of  motives, 
as  will  certainly  be  attended  with  repentance.  But  fuch 
an  exhibition  of  the  truth  as  tliis,  is  fuppoled  by  Dr.  C. 
to  be  made  in  hell.  And  why  this  exhibition  made  in  hell 
is  more  confiftent  with  moral  agency,  than  an  exhibition 
which  is  no  more  effcvftual,  powerful  or  overbearing,,  made 
m  this  life,  I  wifh  to  be  informed. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  further  pleaded,  that  though  it  be 
feafible  to  lead  fnmers  to  repentance  in  this  life  ;  yet  it  is 
not  wife  and  belt.  But  why  is  it  not  as  wife  and  good, 
to  perfuade  fmners  to  repent,  without  the  ufe  of  Iiell-tor- 
ments,  as  by  thofe  torments  ?  If  indeed  it  be  facl^  that 
God  does  not  inllid:  endlefs  but  difciplinary  nufery  on  iin- 
ners,  we  may  thence  conclude,  that  it  is  wifely  fo  ordered. 
But  this  is  not  to  be  taken  for  granted  ;  it  ought  to  be 
proved  before  an  inference  is  draw  from  it.  It  is  the 
great  queftion  of  this  difpute. 

9.  That  future  punilhment  is  not  merely  difciplinary, 
appears  from  the  various  declarations  of  icrjpture,  that  thofe 
who  die  impenitent,  arc  /:y?,  are  cajl  awavy  per'i/J),  fuf- 
fer  perdition,  are  defrroyedy  lufFer  e\'eriailing  dcJlritLlioriy 
&.C.  as  in  thefe  texts  ;  John  XVII.  r2.  ^'  None  of  them 
''  isloflj  fave  the  fon  of  perdition,^' — Luke  IX.  25.  '*  What 
'*  is  a  man  advantaged,  if  he  gain  the  whole  world,  and 
''  h/e  himfelf  orbe  ca/l  away/'—Miin,  XIII.  48!  ''  Ga- 
**  thered  the  good  into  veffels,  but  r/-^/?-  the  bad  (c^rpa 
<'  the  dead,  rotten  filiij  away.''  2  Peter  II.  13.  '^  'i'hey 
*'  fhall  utterly  perifo  in  their  own  ccrruption.'' — .lieb.  X. 
39.   **  We  are  not  of  them  xhzt  draw  back  unto  perdition  ; 

''  but 


fuffer  more  than  DijapUn^.  63 

''  hut  of  them  that  believe  unto  the favlng  of  the  foul.'' — 
2  Peter,  III.  7.  *^  But  the  heavens  and  the  earth  which 
"  are  now,  are  referved  unto  fire,  againfl  the  day  of 
**  judgment,  and /Jdr^^/V/o;!  of  ungodly  men." — Matt.  X. 
28.  *^  Fear  him  who  is  able  to  dejtroy  both  foul  and  body* 
''  in  hell."— 2  Thefi'.  I.  9.  ''  Who  fliall  be  puniihed 
*'  with  everlafliing  dejirufnon   from  the  prefence    of  the 

^•'  Lord  and  the  glory  of  his  power." But  what  truth 

or  propriety  is  there  in  thefe  exprefiions,  if  future  pu- 
niliiment  be  a  mere  difcipline  ?  The  dannied  in  hell  are 
no  more  cafe  away,  loft,  deilroyed  ;  they  no  more  periih, 
or  fuffer  perdition,  than  any  of  God's  elecl  are  caft  away, 
&:c.  while  they  are  in  this  world.  Hell  is  no  more  a  place 
of  deilrucftion,  than  this  world.  The  wicked  in  hell  are 
no  more  veilels  of  v\'rath  fitted  to  defiruclion,  than  the 
faints  are  in  this  world.  The  damned  are  under  diicipline  ; 
fo  are  even  the  mofb  virtuous  and  holy,  while  in  this  life. 
Yet  they  are  not  lolt,  caii  away,  rejeded  as  reprobate  fil- 
ver,  or  delh'oyed  by  God  ;  but  are  kept  as  the  apple  of 
his  eye.  And  as  the  means  of  grace,  under  which  the 
damned  are  placed .  are  far  more  adapted  certainly  to  fecure 
and  pomote  their  grcatell  good,  than  any  means  which 
we  enjoy  in  this  flate  ;  to  confider  and  tofpeak  of  them  as 
loft,  calt  away,  deitroyed,  &c.  becaufe  they  are  under 
thofe  means,  is  to  t]ie  highefb  degree  abfurd.  They  arc 
juft  as  much  further  removed  from  a  ftate,  Vv'hich  can  juftly 
be  called  defrruction,  perdition,  &c.  than  they  were, 
v/hile  in  this  world,  as  the  means  of  grace  which  they  en- 
joy in  hell  are  more  powerful  and  effeftunl  to  prepare 
them  for  hapnincfs,  than  thofc  means  which  they  enjoyed 
in  this  world. 

Suppose  a  man  fcized  with  fome  dangerous  difeafe,  and 
a  variety  of  means  is  ufed  for  his  recovery,  but  in  vain. 
Suppofe  it  appears,  that  if  no  more  effectual  means  be 
employed,  he  will  never  be  recovered.  Suppofe  further, 
that  at  length  an  entirely  diirerent  courfe  is  taken  with 
him,  a  conrfe  v/hich  is  not  only  far  more  likely  than  the 
former  to  be  iucceftfiil  ;  but  ccncerniiig  which  there  is  ab- 
folute  certaintv,  that  it  v.  ill  be  fuccefsful  :  I  aik,  can  the 
man  now  under  the  operation  of  thefe  moil  excellent  and 
infallible  means,  with  any  truth  be  faid  to  be  hjtf  to  be 
cofi  ax^ayy  toh^  dfjlrrjed'^  &c?     Or  if  thofe   terms  muft 


i)c 


64  ^-^^  damned  lulll  In  TaSl 

be  applied  to  one  or  other  of  thofe  fituations,  in  whick 
we  have  fuppofed  him  to  be  at  different  times  ;  to  which 
of  them  are  they  applied  with  the  lead  truth  and  reafon  ? 
This  example  may  illuftrate  the  fubjed  now  under  con- 
fideration. 

10.  If  it  be  confiftcnt  with  the  divine  perfe£lions,  to 
fubjecl  a  (inner  to  mifery,  for  the  fake  of  advancing  his 
c-jon  good^  as  is  implied  in  the  very  idea  of  difciplinary  pu- 
nifhment  j  why  is  it  not  equally  confiftent  with  the  fame 
perfections,  to  fubje6i:  a  (inner  to  mifery,  for  the  fake  of 
promoting  the  good  of  ihe  fyj}em\  provided  that  mifery 
do  not  exceed  the  demerit  of  the  fubjecl  ? — I  prefume  no 
believer  in  endlefs  punifhment,  will  plead  for  any  ^^s^rto, 
or  duration  of  punilhment,  which  is  not  fubfervient  to  the 
glory  of  the  Deity  implying  the  greateft  good  of  the  uni- 
verfe.  Therefore,  all  fuch  puniljmient,  as  is  not  fubfer- 
vient to  that  end,  is  foreign  to  the  prefent  queftion.  Fur- 
ther, it  is  now  fuppofed  to  be  proved,  that  other  pu- 
nifament  than  that  which  is  adapted  to  preparfe  the  (in- 
ner for  happinefs,  is  juftly  deferved.by  the  fmncr.  Now 
fince  this  is  allowed  or  proved,  why  is  it  not  confiftent 
with  every  attribute  of  the  Deity,  to  inflict  that  other  pu- 
nilhment,  provided  only  it  be  fubfervient  to  the  good  of 
the  fyltem  ? 

It  is  holden  by  our  opponents,  that  the  punidiment  of  a 
finner  may  lead  him  to  repentance.  So  it  may  lead  other 
Imners  to  repentance  -;  or  it  may  reftrain  them  from  fm, 
and  in  a  variety  of  ways  may  equally  fubferve  the  good  of 
thofe  who  are  not  the  fubjefts  of  the  punifhment,  as  it  may 
the  good  of  him  who  is  the  fubjed  of  it^  And  that  the 
good  of  other  perfons  may  be  of  equal  worth  and  import- 
ance, nay,  of  far  greater  worth  to  the  fyftem,  than  the 
good  of  the  tranfgreffor  himfelf,  cannot  be  denied. 
Therefore,  as  I  faid  in  the  beo-innino-  of  this  arti- 
cle,  if  the  perfonal  good  of  the  fmner  be  a  fufncient  reafon 
why  he  (hould  be  punhhed  according  to  juftice  ;  why  is 
not  the  good  of  others,  or  the  good  of  the  fyftem,  a  fuf- 
ficient  reafon  for  the  fame  proceedinp-  ?  And  is  it  not 
evident,  not  only  that  fuch  a  punifliment  is  confiftent  with 
the  perfedions  of  God  ;  but  that  thofe  perfedions,  good- 
nefs  itfelf  not  excepted,  require  it  ?  In  this  cafe,  to  in- 
flict a  punifhment  merely   conducive    to  the   good  of  the 

perfon 


ftiffer  more  than  DlfcipUne,  gz* 

perfon  puniflied,  would  be  no  fruit  of  goodnefs,  but  of  ^ 
contrary   principle  ;   and  the   doctrine    of  merely  difcipli^ 
nary   puniihment,  if  it  mean  a  punifhment  conducive   in- 
deed to  the  good  of  the  Aibjed,  but   deftructive  to  the 
.good  of  the  lyftcm.  is  fo  far  from  being   built  on  the  di- 
vine goodnefs,  as  fome  boait ;   that  it  is  built   on  a  verv 
difi-erent  fouj^idation.      I  am  aware,  that  it  is  holden  by  the 
V  advocates  for  univerfai   falvation,  that    the    good    of   the 
^''  fyftem  cannot  be  promoted  by  the   endlefs    mifery  of  any 
individual,  but  requires  the  final  happinefs  of  ever}'^  one. 
Merely  to  affert  this  however,  as  fome  do  very  ccnlidenily, 
is  perfeft  impertinence.     Let  them   prove    it^   and    they 
vv'ill  do  fome  thing  to  the  purpofe . 

II.  If  none  of  the  damned  will  be  puni/lied  for  any 
other  end  than  their  own  good,  and  yet  they  all  deferve 
to  be  puniilied  more  than  is  llibfervient  to  their  ov,  n  good  ; 
then  fome  of  them  deferve  to  be  punifned  for  a  lonp-er  term, 
than  that  which  in  fcripture,  according  to  Dr.  C'sfenfe  of  it, 
is  laid  to  h^  forever  and  ever.  The  puniihment,  which  in 
the  language  of  fcripture,  is  frid  to  be  everlcfiing,  fir^ 
ever  and  ever^  See.  will  actually  be  fuffered  by  Ibme  of  th^ 
damned,  as  is 'agreed  on  all  handa.  But  if  none  of  the 
damned  will  fufFer  any  other  punifliment  than  that  which 
is  conducive  to  their  perfonal  gcod^  then  the  punifhment 
v/hich  in  fcripture  is  laid  to  be  forever  and  ever,  is  con- 
ducive to  their  perfonal  good.  I'hey  therefore  deferve  a 
puniihment  of  greater  duration  than  that  which  in  fcrip- 
ture is  faid  to  be  forever  and  ever  :  and  of  courfe  that  more 
durable  puniihment  is  the  curfe  of  the  divine  law,  and 
is  threatened  in  the  law.  But  where  in  all  the  law,  or 
in  all  the  fcripture,  is  any  puniihment  threatened,  or  even 
hinted  at,  of  greater   duration  than  that  which    Ihall  laft 

forever  and  ever  ? So  that  this  fcheme  of    difciplinary 

punifliment  necefTarily  brings  us  to  this  abfurdity,  that  the 
true  and  real  curfe  of  the  divine  law,  is  not  contained  in 
the  law  ;  and  that  the  punifhment  juflly  delerved  by  the 
finner,  is  no  where  revealed  or  even  hinted  ar,  in  all  the 
fcripture.  Yet  the  fcripture  aiTures  us,  that  fome  linners 
will  be  in  fad  punifned  according  to  their  demerits,  fo  as 
to  pay  the  uttermofl  farthing,  and  to  receive  judgm.ent 
without  mercy.  And  no  man  pretends  that  any  fmner 
\yill  fufrer  more  than  that  punifliment  which  in  fcripture  is 
laid   to  be  frsver  and  ever.     The  confeciuence  is.»  that 

K  that 


^5'  The  damned  ivill  In  FaSf 

that  puniniment  which  is  forever  and  ever,  is  the  whofc 
that  the  fmner  deferves,  and  therefore  is  by  no  means  a 
mere  diicipiine. 

12.  Our,  Lord  informs  us,  Matt.  X.  33  ;  That  whofo- 
ever  ihall  deny  him  before  men,  fhall  be  denied  by  him  be- 
fore his  lather.  But  on  the  hypothells  now  under  confi- 
deration,  this  means  only,  tliat  Chrill:  will  deny  him  till 
he  repents.  In  Luke  XIII.  25,  &c.  we  read,  that  when 
once  the  mafcer  of  the  houfe  ihall  have  rifen  and  fhut  the 
door,  feme  will  begin  to  itand  without  and  to  knock,  fay- 
ing, Lord,  Lord,  open  to  us,  and  will  urge  feveral  ar- 
guments in  favour  ot  their  admilTion  :  to  whom  the  maf- 
ter  will  anfwer,  I  know  you  not,  whence  you  are  ;  de- 
part from  me,  all  ye  workers  of  iniquity.  But  on  the 
prefent  hypothells,  Chrift  will  deny  them  in  no  other  fenfe 
than  he  denies  every  real  penitent  andbelievfr,  during  the 
prefent  life.  He  will  deny  the  wicked  after  the  general 
judp-ment  no  longer  than  till  they  fhall  have  been  fufficiently 
difciplined  ;  after  that,  he  will  know  them,  will  own 
them,  and  receive  them  to  eternal  and  blifsful  communion 
with  himfelf.  The  fame  is  obfervable  of  all  his  molt  fin- 
cere  difciples  in  this  life.  While  here,  they  arc  under 
difcipline,  though  not  fo  merciful  and  gracious  a  difcipline 
as  that  with  which  the  damned  are  favoured.  However, 
during  the  continuance  of  the  difcipline  of  this  life,  Chrift 
denies  and  refufes  to  confer  on  any  of  his  difciples,  an  en- 
tire exem.ption  from'pain,  diftrefs,  or  affliilion  ;  and  fub- 
jecls  them  equally  with  the  refl  of  the  world,  to  thefe  ca- 
lamities :  fo  that  in  this  refpeftall  things  come  alike  to  all., 
He  does  indeed  give  them  affurance  of  reft  and  glory  after 
this  life.  As  full  aillirance  of  reft  and  glory  after  the  ex- 
piration of  the  term  of  their  difcipline,  is,  on  the  prefent 
hypothefis,  given  to  all  the  damned.  Alfo  in  the  profpecl 
of  this  reft  and  glorj'",  and  in  the  certain  i<:no\vledge  that 
they  are  the  objects  of  his  favour,  he  altords  his  difciples 
much  relief  and  comfort  under  their  prefent  trials.  The 
fame  fources  of  relief  and  comfort  are  afforded  to  all  the 
damned.  So  that  Chrift  denies  the  damned  in  no  other 
fenfe,  than  that  in  which  he  denies  his  moft  (incere  fol- 
lowers,  during  this  life. 

The  fame  obfervations  for  fubftance  may  be  made  con- 
cerning the  application  cf  the  damned  for  admiffion  into 
heaven,  after  the  general  judgment,  and  the  anfwer  and 

treatment 


fuffer  more  than  'Dlfc'ipUne*  6j 

'treatment  which  they  Ihall  receive  on  that  occafion.  The 
door  fliall  be  jOiut  againft  them  no  longer  than  till  they 
ihall  have  been  fujfticiently  difcipiined.  The  fame  is  true 
of  every  real  chriftiaii  in"  this  life. — The  mafter  of  the 
lioufe  will  anfwer,  I knoivyou  not,  ft.  e.J  I  do  not  as  yet  own 
you  as  my  friends. and  difciples,  becaufe  you  have  not  yet 
been  fufficiently  difcipiined.  The  fame  is  true  of  every 
real  chriftian  in  this  hfe. — He  will  tell  them,  ^^  Depart 
^'  from  me,  all  ye  workers  of  iniquity."  But  this  means 
no  more,  than  that  they  muft  not  be  admitted  into  hea- 
ven, till  they  diall  have  been  fufficiently  difcipiined.  The 
fame  is  true  of  all  real  chriftians  in  this  life. 

13.  On  the  hypotheiis  now  under  condderation,  what 
damnation  do  thofe  in  hell  fuffer,  more  than  real  chrif- 
tian s  fuifer  in  this  life  ?  They  are  kept  in  a  ftate  of  moft 
merciful  and  gracious  difcipline,  till  they  arc  prepared, 
and  then  they  are  taken  to  heaven.  The  fame  is  true  of 
every  real  chriftian  in  this  life.  This  difference  however 
is  v.'orthy  of  notice,  that  the  difcipline  of  hell  is  far  more 
advantageous  than  that  of  this  life,  becaufe  more  effeclual, 
and  likely  to  fit  the  fubjeft  for  heaven  more  fpeedily  and 
thoroughly  ;  otherwife  it  would  never  have  been  applied. 
It  is  alio  a  more  merciful  and  gracious  exhibiton  of  the  di- 
vine goodnefs.  Dcubtlefs  that  mean  of  grace,  w^hich  is 
mod  happily  and  eiFcclually  conducive  to  the  fpeedy  re- 
pentance and  preparation  of  the  finner  for  heaven,  is  to 
him  the  m.oft  merciful  and  gracious  exhibition  and  demon- 
ftration  of  the  divine  goodnefs. 

It  is  true,  the  difcipline  of  hell  is  attended  with  more 
pain  than  that  of  this  life.  So  the  difcipline  of  this  life, 
with  refpect  to  fome  individuals,  is  attended  wiih  more 
pain,  than  it  is  with  refpecl  to  others.  Yet  it  doth  not 
hence  follow,  'that  foine  chriftians  fuffer  damnation  in  this 
life  :  nor  will  it  be  pretended,  that  either  the  fcriptures 
or  common  fenfe  would  jufliify  the  calling  of  thofe  greater" 
pains  of  fome  chiftians  in  this  life,  by  the  name  of  damna- 
tion, in  any  other  fenfe,  than  the  lefs  pains  or  afflicllons 
of  other  chriftians,  may  be  called  by  the  fame  name. 

On  the  whole  then,  v/hen  the  fcripture  lays,  '^  He  that 
'^  believe;:h,  and  is  baptized  fhall  be  faved ;  but  he  that 
"  believeth  not  ihall  be  damned  :''  The  whole  meanincr  is, 
he  that  beheveth,  fliall  be  admitted  to  heaven  immediately 
after  death  :  but  he  that  believeth  not,  Ihall  not  immedi- 


6B  The  damned  ivill  in  FaSi 

ately  b§  admitted,  merely  becaufe  he  is  not  yet  prepared  for 
it  by  riCpelitance  ;  but  he  iballbe  put  under  a  dilcipline  abfo- 
lutely  ncceiTary  for  his  own  good,  and  the  moPc  wife,  effedtual, 
merciful  and|  gracious,  that  divine  wifdom  and  goodnefscan 
devii'e  ;-  and  as  foon  as  this  difcipline  Ihall  have  prepared 
him  for  heaven,  he  fhall  be  admitted  without  further  delay. 
Vv'  hen  the  fcriptures  fay,  he  that  believetii  not  the  Son, 
fnali  not  fee  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him  ; 
the  meaning  is,  he  ihall  not  fee  hfe  till  he  is  brought  to 
repentance  by  the  merciful  difcipline  juft  novv  mentioned.; 
and  not  the  -ivraih  of  God  abideth  on  him  ;  becaufe  he  fnali 
be  made  the  fubjecl  of  nothing  wrathful  or  vindictive  ;  but 
the  mercy y  or  moil  merciful  and  benevolent  difcipline  of 
God  abideth  on  him. 

14.  If  the  only  end  of  future  punifnment  be  the  repen- 
tance of  the  fmner,  and  if  the  means  x^^tCi  with  finners 
in  hell  be  fo  much  more  powerful  and  happily  adapted  to 
the  end,  than  thofe  ufed  in  this  life  ;  it  is  unaccountable, 
that  while  fo  many  are  led  to  repentance  by  the  compara- 
tively w  eak  means  ufed  v^-ith  men  in  this  life,  and  v\nthin 
fo  ihort  a  period  as  feventy  years,  the  far  more  powerful 
means  applied  in  hell,  fnould  not  be  productive  of  the 
fame  effect,  in  a  fingle  inflance,  within  fo  long  a  period 
as  a  tlioufand  years.  That  none  are  to  be  delivered  out 
of  heii,  v/ithin  a  thoufand  years  alter  the  general  judg- 
ment, is  expiiciLly  taught  by  Dr.  C.  His  words  are,* 
'•  This  period  "  /a  thoufand  years  )  '*  muft  run  out,  be- 
*^^  fore  the  wicked"  dead  could  *.tiy  of  them  live  askinp-sand 
'^pricaswith    Chrift.'' 

We  all  doubdefs  believe,  that  many  llnners  die  impe- 
nitent, vvlio  iu-e  not  the  fubjects  of  depravity  and  hardnefs 
of  iieart  vaftly  greater,  than  are  in  fome,  v/ho  are 
brou;;ht  to  repentance  in  this  life.  Nou^  put  the  cafe  of 
th?  ciafs  of  fn: vers,  wI^aO  are  the  fubjefts  of  a  depravity 
and  hardnefs  of  "heart,  the  very  next  in  degree  to  that  of 
ll?  moll  depraved  of  tliofe  who  are  brought  to  repent- 
ance in  this  life.  Is  it  reaicnable  to  believe,  that  thefe 
cannot  be  broujiht  to  repentance,  even  b}'-  the  mcH  pow- 
crfnl  r^e;ii:3  of  -grace  enjoyed  in  hell,  within  a  lc(s  time 
thrra  a  thoufand  years  ?  If  it  js  not  reafonable  to  believe 
this,  then  it  is  net  reafonable  to  believe  Dr,  C's  fcheme 
©f  difciplinary  puniiliment.  15.   The 


fuffer  more  than  D'lfctplinc,  69 

15.  The  laft  enemy  that  iliall  be  deitroyed  is  death. 
This  death  is  underftood  by  Dr.  C.  and  other  advocates 
for  miiverfal  falvation,  to  mean  the  fecond  death.  Then 
the  fecond  dea ch  is  doubtlefs  an  enemy.  But  if  it  confiil 
in  a  neceilliry  difciphns,  the  mofl  wife  and  wholefomd, 
the  moft  conducive  to  the  good  of  the  recipients,  and  to 
the  divine  glory,  which  the  wifdom  of  God  can  devifc  ; 
furely  it  is  no  enerny  either  to  Goii  or  the  recipients  ;  but 
is  a  perfefl"  fnend  to  both.  Witli  what  truth  then  could 
the  apoille  call  it  an  enemy  ? 

16.  T\{^.  fcripture,  fo  far  from  declaring  thofe  v/ho  fuf- 
fer chatliiemeat  and  difcipiinary  pains,  accvrfed,  merely 
on  that  account;  expreffiy  declares  them  blejjed.  Pfal, 
XCIV.  12  ;  '^  BleiTed  is  the  man  whom  thou  chafteneft^ 
*'  O  Lord,  and  teacheft  him  out  of  thy  law  ;  that  thou 
*'  mayefl  give  him  reft:  from  the  days  of  adverfity."  But 
where  are  the  damned  ever  faid  to  be   bleiled  \   They  ^re 

conftantly    declared  to  be  accurfed. Keb.  XII.   5 — p^ 

^*  Ye  have  forgotten  the  exhortation,  which  fpeaketh  to 
'^  you,  as  unto  children,  my  fon,  defpife  not  thou  the 
'^  chaltening  of  the  Lord,  nor  faint  when  thou  art  rebu- 
'^  buked  of  him.  For  whom  the  Lord  loveth,  he  chaf-» 
^^  teneth,  and  fcourgeth  every  fon  whom  he  re~ 
*^  ceiveth.  If  ye  endure  chaft:ening,  God  dealeth 
'^  with  you  as  with  fons.  For  what  fon  is  he,  whom  the 
"  Father  chafteneth  not  ?  But  if  ye  be  Vv'ithout  chafcife- 
*^  ment,    whereof  all  are  partakers,  then  are  ye  baflards 

'^  and    not   fons." This  pafFage    evidently    conliders 

thofe  who  fuiier  chaftil'ement  from  the  hand  of  God,  as 
his  children,  his  fons.  If  therefore  the  damned  fuffer 
a  mete  chaiiifement,  they  ;ire  not  accurfed,  but  are  the 
blefled  fons  or  children  of  God.  But  are  they  ever  fo 
called  in  fcripture? — Befide  ;  thispaiTage  evidently  fuppo- 
fes,  that  fome  men  do  not  fuffer  fatherly  chaflifement,  of 
which  all  the  fons  or  cliildren  of  God  are  partakers  ;  and 
exprefHy  declares,  that  fuch  as  do  not  fuffer  it  are  bailards 
and  not  fons  :  which  fcems  not  to  agree  with  the  idea, 
that  all  the  drnined,  v/ill  by  fathrrly  chaflifement  be 
brought  to  final  falvalion.  If  no  other  puniihmeiit 
ke  inflided  by  God,  than  fatherly  chaflifement,  .then  there 


ar( 


70  The  damned  will  in  FaSf 

are  no  baftards  in  the  univerfe.  Yet  it  is  evidently  fiip- 
pofed  in  this  text,  that  there  are  baflards. 

Heb.  X.  28,  ''  He  that  defpifed  Mofes  law  died  without 

*'  mercy of  how  much  forer  punifiiment  fhall  he   be 

**  thought  worthy,  who  hath  trodden  under  foot  the  fon 
*'  of  God ?'^  &c.  But  if  all  who  die  impenitent,  be  fent  to 
a  ftatc  of  difciphne  moft  excellently  adapted  to  their  good 
and  falvation,  no  man  dies  without  mercy.  This  dif- 
cipline  itfelf  is  the  greateft  mercy  which  can,  in  their  frate 
of  mind,  be  beftowed  upon  them.  With  refpect  to  the 
fame  fubjeft,  it  is  faid,  Heb.  II.  2 ;  '^  That  e^^cry  tranf- 
^'  greihon  and  diibbedience,  received  a  jufl  recompence 
*'  of  reward.'^ — ^^ P'ft  recompence,  is  a  pun'-lhment  ade- 
quate to  the  demands  of  juftice  ;  and  this,  as  we  have 
feen  in  the  preceding  chapter,  cannot  be  a  mere  merciful 
difcipline . 

17.  If  the  puniflimcnt  of  hell  be  a  mere  wholefome 
difcipline,  then  what  the  apoftie  fays  of  tiie  difcipline 
of  chrlftians  in  this  life,  may  be  faid  with  equal  truth 
and  propriety  of  the  puni/hment  of  the  damned  :  thus,  We 
glory  in  damnation  ;  knowing  that  damnation  worketh 
repentance,  and  repentance  falvation. 

18.  If  no  other  than  a  difciplinary  punifiiment  be  con- 
fiflent  with  the  divine  goodnefs  ;  furely  the  requirement 
of  an  atonement  in  order  to  .pardon,  is  unaccountable. 
Xhedoclrine  of  atonement,  and  cf  the  neceility  of  it  to^par- 
don  and  falvation,  is  abundantly  hoiden  by  3Jr.  C.  He 
fays,*  *'  Jefus  Chrift  is  the  perfon  vpon  whofe  account  hap- 
'*  pinefs  is  attainable  by  the  human  race.''  He  fpeaksf  of 
the  ^\facrifice  of  himfelf,''  vvhich  Chrifl /^  offered  up 
*'  to  God  to  put  away  Im."  ''  The  obedience  of  ChrilV 
*'  to  death,  is  the  ground  ov  reafc-z  upon  which  it  hatli 
'^  pleafed  God  to  m.ake  happinefs  attainable  by  any  of  the 
'^  race  of  Adam. '^f  *^  By  thus  fubmitting  to  die,  he" 
(Jefus)  '^  m^ile  atonenzent,  not  only  for  the  original  lapfe, 
*'  but  for  all  the  fins  this  would  be  introductory  to."^ — 
'^  Chriil:  v/as  fent  into  the  world  to  make  way  for  the 
''  'dj'ije,  juj}  and  holy  excrcife  of  mercy  towards  the  fmful 
^'  fons  of  men. ''II  '^  The  only  begotten  Son  of  God 
'^  both  did  and  fuffered  every  thing  that  was  neceiTary,  in 

der 


or 


*  Page  17.   :;:  P.  iS.   f  P.  19.   §  5  dilTertations,  p.  245. 
ibid,  .p.  247. 


fuffer  more  than  Difdpltne.  ft 

*'  order  to  a  righteoufnefs  on  account  of  which  God  might, 
''  in  confiftency  with  the  honour  of  his  perfeSiionSj  and  the 
'^  authority  of  his  lavjj  make  the  grant  of  life.  Accord— 
^'  ingly  this  meritorious  righteoufnefs  is  that /or  the  fake 
^'  of  which y  upon  the  account  of  which,  this  blelfmg  is  con- 
^^  ferred.'^llll  According  to  Dr.  C.  then,  Chrift  hath 
not  only  made  atonement  by  his  obedience  and  death,  but 
that  atonement  was  necelTary  to  the  wife,  jufi  and  holy 
exerclfe  of  mercy  to  the  fmner ;  and  without  that 
atonement,  faving  mercy  could  not  have  been  exercifed 
toward  the  fmner,  in  a  confiftency  with  wifdom^  juftice 
and  holinefs,  or  the  honour  of  the  divine  perfections,  or 
the  authority  of  the  divine  law  and  government.  The 
conftitution  therefore  by  which  falvation  can  be  obtained 
in  no  other  way,  than  in  confequence  and  on  account  of 
his  obedience  and  death,  is  not  only  conflftent  with  wif- 
dom,  holinefs,  juftice,  yea,  all  the  divine  perfections, 
and  the  authority  of  the  divine  law  and  government  :  but 
it  was  required  by  them  all. 

But  the  fufferings  and  death  of  Chrift",  or  his  atone- 
nient,  is  no  difcipline  of  the  fmner.  They  are  as  foreign 
from  it  as  the  vindictive  punilhmcnt  of  the  fmner  himfelf. 
The  atonement,  as  Dr.  C.  hath  explained  it,  makes  way 
for  the  wife,  juft  and  holy  exercife  of  mercy  toward  the 
fmner.  It  v/as  therefore  defigned  to  fatisfy  the  divine 
ivifdom,  jufiice  and  holimfs.  It  was  defigned  to  make  the 
grant  of  life  to  the  (inner  confflent  with  the  honour  of  the 
divine  perfe^ions,  and  the  authority  of  the  di-jine  law  and  go- 
vernment.  And  if  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  might,  in  the 
behalf  of 'the  Imner,  be  made  to  fuifer  in  order  to  fatisfy 
divine  jufiice  ;  why  may  not  the  fmner  himfelf  be  made  t^^ 
fufter  for  the  fame  end  ? 

If  Chrift  have,  on  the  behalf  of  fmners,  fuifered  fcr 
the  end  of  fuppordng  the  authority  of  the  divine  la\v  and 
government ;  w  hat  reafon  can  be  affigned,  why  it  IhouIJ 
be  inconfiftent  with  any  attribute  of  the  Deity,  that 
finners  themfelves  fhould  be  made  to  fuller  for  the  fame 
end  ?  But  this  v/ould  be  a  proper  vindictive  punifhnient. 
Therefore  Dr.  C.  is  entirely  inconfiftent  with  himfelf,  in 
allov/ing  the  atonement  of  Chrift,  in  the  terms  before 
quoted  ;  and  yet  denying  the  reafonablenefs  of  a  vindictive 
puniiliment,  or  its  conliiteucy  with  the  divine  perfections. 

19.  We 

|||[   12  fermons^  p.   334. 


^2  The  damned  ivlll  in  Ta6i 

19.  Wk  are  alTured,  '^  that  all  things  work  together 
^^  for  good  to  them  that  love  God,  to  them  who  are  called 
^*  accordmg  to  his  purpofe  ;''  Rom.  VIII.  28.  But  this 
implies,  that  all  things  do  not  work  for  good,  to  them  who 
Jove  not  God.  Yet  all  things  do  work  for  their  good,  if 
they  fiifFer  no  other  than  a  difciplinary  punilhment.  Con- 
cerning thofe  who  arc  Chrift's,  it  is  faid,  that  "  all  things 
*'  are  their's  ;  whether  Paul  or  Apollos,  or  Cephas,  or 
*'  the  world,  or  life,  or  death,  or  things  prefent,  or 
*^  things  to  come  ;  all  are  their's;  ''  I  Cor.  III.  21,  1%, 
But  on  the  fuppoiition,  that  all  puniihment  is  difciplinary, 
■it  is  equally  true  concerning  all  mankind,  that  all  things 
prefent  and  to  come  are  their's.  Yet  this  is  not  i'aid,  but 
the  contrary  is  implied  in  that  it  is  faid  of  thofe  only  who 
are  Chriil's  or  are  Chi-ifcians,  that  all  things  are  their's. 

20.  I  ARGUE  from  thofe  words  of  the  wife  man,  Eccl. 
IX.  10  ;  ^'  Whatfoever  thy  hand  findeth  to  do,  do  it  with 
*^  thy  mig:ht  ;  for  there  is  no  -work,  nor  device,  nor 
^*  knowledge,  nor  wifdom  in  the  grave  whither  thou 
*'  goefr.^^  If  future  punifhment  be  difcilplinary,  the 
damned  are  in  a  ftate  of  probation,  and  may  and  will  fo 
exercife  their  rational  powers,  as  ihall  finally  ifTue  in  their 
falvation.  But  can  this  be  reconciled  with  the  v.ords  of 
Solomon,  that  in  the  future  ftate,  there  is  no  v/ork  to  be 
done,  no  device  to  be  invented,  no  knowledge  or  vv^ifdom 
to  be  exercifed  by  lis,  to  the  accompliiliment  of  what  we 
nov/  leave  undone  ?  This  is  manifeftly  the  argument,  by 
which  he  preiTes  on  us  the  prefent  diligent  difcharge  of  our 
duty  ;  and  this  argument  would  be  utterly  inconclufive, 
if  there  v/ere  another  flate,  in  which  what  our  hand  now 
fmdeth  to  do,  might  be  done. 

Of  fimilar  import  is  John  IX.  4  ;  ^^  I  mufl  work  the 
'^  works  of  him  that  fent  me,  while  it  is  day  ;  the  night 
*^  cometh  when  no  man  can  work.  As  long  as  I  am  in 
^'  the  zuoj'ld,  I  am  the  light  of  the  world."  That  our 
Lord,  by  the  day,  means  this  life,  is  manifefl  by  the  laft 
words  'jf  the  quotation.  But  if  in  the  future  ftate  no 
man  can  work,  the  future  ftate  is  not  a  ftate  of  proba- 
tion. 

To  thefe  I  may  add,  Gen.  VI.   3  ;  ''  My  fpirit   fhall 
not  always  ftrive   with  man — yet  his  days  fhall  be    an 
hundred  an  twenty  years.''     As  if  it  had  been  faid,  my 
fpirit  fhall  not  always  ftrive  with  man  ;  yet  he  fhall  ftrive 

with 


fuffer  more  than  Difclpline*  73 

with  him  an  hundred  and  twenty  years,  and  no  longer  ; 
for  fo  long  only  fhall  his  days  be  continued.  But  how  is 
this  conliilent  with  the  idea,  that  God  will  be  ftriving 
with  man,  for  ages  of  ages  after  his  days  jQiall  have  been 
elap fed  ? 

Objedion  i.  If  to  fonie  part  of  the  foregoing  reafoning 
It  be  objeded,  that  it  fuppofes  future  puniihment  to  be 
merely  dlfciplinary,  and  dcfigned  to  fubferve  no  ^iher  end> 
than  the  repentance  of  the  linner :  whereas  it  is  granted^ 
that  God  may  and  will  inflict  vindiclive  pnnifliment,  but 
not  apiinifhntent  merely  vindictive;  that  he  may  take  ven- 
geance of  the  flnner,  provided  at  the  fame  time  he  aim  at 
the  good  of  the  {inner  ;   To  this  I  anlVer- — 

1.  That  in  this  objection  it  is  granted,  that  God  may 
and  will  inflict  on  the  dam.ned  a  punifliment  properly  vin- 
diftive,  a  punifliment  over  and  above  that  ^¥hich  is  con- 
ducive to  the  perfonal  good  of  the  fmner.  But  this  is  to 
grant  all  which  is  pleaded  for  in  this  chapter,  and  all 
which  at  prefcnt  is  attempted  to  be  proved. 

2.  If  the  meaning  of  this  objection  be,  that  God  may 
inflift  vengeance,  provided  he  do  it  v/ith  a  fole  view  to  the 

.  good  of  the  iinner,  it  confutes  itfelf;  it  feems  to  grant 
fomething,  but  in  reality  it  grants  nothing.  It  feems  to 
admit  a  proper  vindictive  punifliment,  but  really  admits  no 
puniihment  belides  tlint  which  is  merely  dlfciplinary.  For 
to  talk  of  inflicl:ing  vengeance  with  a  fole  view  to  the  gooct 
of  the  fubject,  can  mean  nothing  more,  than  to  in^ii'dpaln 
v.'Ith  a  fole  view  to  the  good  of  the  fubject ;  and  this  is 
jiothing  more  than  a  punilliment  merely  dlfciplinary  :  if 
Cod  iliow 'diipleafure  witii  a  fole  view  ta  the  good  of  the 
linner,  this  is  mere  difcipline. 

3.  \y  the  meaning  of  this  objection  be,  that  Gcd  may 
confillemly  with  his  perfeccions,  inflict  a  ]7roper  vlndi6!:ivc 
punifliment,  provided  at  the  fame  time  that  he  is  aiming 
at  a  proper  vindication  of  his  broken  law  and  defpifed  go- 
vernment,  he  aim  at  the  good  of  the  linner  alio  ;  I  an- 
fwcr,  if  it  be  right  smd  confluent  with  tlie  perfedicns  of 
God,  to  vindicate  his  lavv^  and  p-overiiment,  there  iy  no  ne- 
ceility  oi  bringing  in  the  aid  («f  "another  motive  or  dehgn, 
to  make  it  right  or  confilrent  with  his  perfections.  If  on 
the  other  liand,  it  be  not  i'-i  itfelf  right  tj  \  indicate  his 
law  and  government,  nooth'rr  atfcctions,  views  or  actions, 

however 


74  '-^^<^  damned  '-Mill  in  Fact 

however  right  and  benevolent,  co-exifting  V^ith  the  fup- 
pofed  vindication,  can  atone  for  it,  or  make  it  right. 

To  illiiftrate  this  by  an  example  : — A  parent  has  a.  dif- 
obedient  child  ;  and  it  is  become  necelTary  both  for  the 
good  of  the  child,  and  for  the  iupport  of  the  parent's  au- 
iliority  in  his  family  in  general,  and  over  his  child  in  par- 
ticular, that  lie  be  properly  pmiiflied.  Accordingly  from 
both  thsfe  motives,  the  good  of»the  child  and  the  fupport 
of  his  own  authority,  the  parent  inflicts  the  proper  punifh- 
ment.  This  according  to  the  obje6tion  novv^  before  us,  is 
right.  Biit  according  to  the  fame  objection,  if  the  child 
be  defperate  and  there  be  no  profpecl  of  eiFefting  his  good 
by  punifhment,  it  is  not  conlifLent  with  the  character  of  a 
good  parent  to  inilict  the  fame  punifliment,  from  the  mo- 
tives of  fapporting  his  ovv^n  government  and  the  good  of 
the  family  only.  If  this  action  done  from  thefe  motives 
only,  be  a  wrong  action,  it  is  {iill  v/rong,  fo  far  as  it  pro- 
ceeds from  the  fame  motives,  however  it  may  arife  in 
part  from  the  motive  of  the  child's  good.  To  render 
this,rtiil  plainer,  let  us  fuppofe,  that  a  parent  inflids  pain 
on  his  child  merely  to  afford  amui'ement  to  his  neighbours, 
as  the  Romans  were  wont  to  exhibit  fip-hts  of  gladiators. 
It  will  be  agreed  on  all  hands,  that  this  action  is  abomina- 
ble. Again,  fuppofe  the  fame  pain  be  infiicled  partly  from 
the  motive  of  amuling  his  neighbours,  and  partly  from 
a  regard  to  the  child's  good.  I  prefume  all  will  allow, 
that  fo  fdr  as  the  action  proceeds  from  the  former  motive, 
it  is  ftill  abominable,  and  is  not  fanctifled  by  the  co-exill- 
ent  motive  of  the  child's  good. 

On  the  whole,  v/e  arrive  at  this  conclufion  \  that  if  it 
be  confiftent  with,  the  divine  perfections,  that  God  fliould 
inflicl  punifliment  from  the  two  ■  motive>s  of  vindicating  his 
ov/n  law  and  government  and  benefiting  the  fmner  ;  it  is 
equally  confiftent  with  the  divine  perfections  to  inflict  pun- 
iflnnent  from  the  former  motive  only.  4.11  the  vindictive 
punilhment  pleaded  for,  is  that  v/liich  is  deferved  by  the 
linner  and  is  necefiary  to  iupport  the  divine  law  and  mo- 
ral government  in  proper  dignity,  and  thus  to  promote  the 
general  good  :  and  this  fur|.'ly  is  oppofed  to  no  attribute 
of  God,  "whether  juftice  cr  goodnels. 

Objection  2.  To  tlie  argument  .(!rawn  from  the  def- 
tructicn  threatened  to  the  wicked,  it  may  be  objected,  that 
this  dcfcrutli on  means,   that  th^v  ilir;!]  h-    dclh'oyed  ^7j- /7;2- 

ners 


fuffer  7nore  than  DifcipUne.  7^ 

ners  only,  or  fhall  be  brought  to  repentance  and  a  renun- 
ciation of  fin.  To  this  it  may  be  anfwered,  that  in  this 
fenfe  every  one  who  in  this  life  repents  and  believes,  is 
deftroyed,  and  luiTers  dellruftion.  Yet  tliis  is  never  faid 
in  fcripture.  This  fenfe  of  the  word  de(}ru^ion  makes 
the  puniihment  of  hell,  and  the  awful  curfe  of  the  divine 
law,  to  confifh  in  repentance,  which  is  no  puniihment  or 
curfe,  but  an  inefl;imable:bi<:iring.  Belides,  that  repent- 
ance, on  which  the  {inner  is  forgiven  if  it  can  be  called  a 
dfflrii6lion  at  all,  is  not  an  cverlaji'ing  deflruclion,  but 
an  emotion  of  heart,  which  is  begun  and  finilhed  in  a  ve- 
ry Ihort  time.  Or  if  by  this  everlailing  defl:ru6tion  be 
underftcod  tiie  habitual  and  perfevering  repentance  of 
the  true  convert ;  then  the  glorified  faints  in  heaven,  are 
conftantly  fuffering  that  defiruCiion  v/hich  vv^ill  be  everiaft- 
ing,  and  which  is  the  curfe  of  the  divine  law. 

Before  this  fubjed;  is  difmifled,  proper  notice  ought 
to  be  taken  of  fome  arguments  urged  in  favour  of  the  ien- 
timent,  that  the  punifhment  of  hell  is  merely  difcip- 
plin:';- ^ 

I .  It  is  urged,*  that  the  various  afflictions  of  this  life 
are  deugned  for  the  good  of  tlie  patients  :  therefore  pro- 
bably the  fame  end  is  dcfigned  by  the    fuffer ings   of  hell. 

To    this  it   may    be    anfwered,  It    is    by  no   means 

granted,  that  all  the  afflictions  of  this  life  are  defigned. 
for  the  good  cf  the  patients.  It  does  not  appear,  that 
men  in  p-eneral,  who  are  vifited  with  the  lofs  of  children, 
wives,  or  otlier  dear  friends  ;  or  with  the  lofs  of  eye- 
fight,  of  fome  other  fenfe,  or  of  a  limb  ;  or  with  diftrefl- 
ing  pains  or  incurable  difeafes  ;  are  thereby  rendered 
more  happy  in  this  life.  If  men  may  be  ailovv^ed  to 
judge  by  their  ^  own  experience,  they  will  in  mofc  cafes 
(iecide  th?  queflion  in  the  negative.  Nor  does  the  deci- 
lion  in  many  cafes  appear  ill  founded  to  thofe,  who  have 
opportunity  to  obferve  perfons  under  thofe  arflidlions. 
To  fay  tliat  men  are  no  proper  judges,  whether  they 
themfelves  be,  in  this  life,  made  m^ore  happy  or  not,  by 
the  af iiicdons  which  they  fiifFer,  is  to  fay,  that  they  are  no 
iudc;es  of  their  own  hapDinefs  or  miferv.  This  being; 
once  eiviablifhed,  we  may  affert,  -that  hell- torments 
though  endlefs  promote  the  happinefs  of  the  patients  : 
becaufe  being  no  judges  of  their  own  liappinefs  or   mifery 

they 

P^''^^C     324,    325. 


j6  The  damned  ivill  In  Ta6l 

they  may  be  extremely  happy,  at  the  very  time  they  judge 
themfelves  to  be  perfecliy   mii'erable. 

i  >J  any  cafe  in  which  calamity  proves  fatal,  it  is  abfurd 
to  pretend,  mat  it  promotes,  in  this  life,  the  happinefs 
of  the  patient,  unleis  calamity  itfelf  be  happineis.  No 
man  has  opportunity  in  this  life  to  derive  any  good  from 
the  panis  of  death.  Therefore  at  lead  thcfe  pains  are 
not  defigned  for  the  fubjecVs  good  during  his  prefent 
life. 

Here  it  may  be  proper  to  mention  feveral  remarkable  in- 
ftances  of  grievous  calamity  recorded  in  fcripture  :  As 
the  indance  of  the  old  world,  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  of 
Pharaoh,  Saul,  the  houfc  of  Eli,  Nadab  and  Abihu,  lifel, 
i^c,  Jt  is  prelumed,  Dr.  C,  himfelf  would  not  pretend, 
that  thefe  calamities  were  intended  for  **  the  profit  of  the 
fufferers  themfelves''  in  this  life.  What  right  then  had 
he  to  argue,  as  in  the  following  paflage  ?  *  * '  The  pro- 
^*  per  tendency  and  hnal  caufe  of  evils  in  the  prefent  ftate, 
*^  are  to  do  us  good.  This  is  the  voice  of  reafon  confir- 
''  med  by  experience,  and  fcripturc  concurs  herewith." 
Ke  then  quotes  Pial.  LXXXIX.  31 — 34;  and  proceeds, 
'^  Jf  evil,  puniihment  or  mifcry  in  the  prefent  life  is  mer- 
**  cifuUy  intended  for  the  good  of  the  patients  themfelves 
*"'  why  not  in  the  next  life  \  Is  the  character  of  God,  as 
''  the  father  of  mercies,  and  God  of  pity,  confined  to 
*'  this  world  only  ?''  The  force  of  all  this  depends  en- 
tirely on  the  fuppolition,  that  in  all  infcances  of  fuffering 
in  this  life,  the  end  is  the   faffcrer's  good  during  this  life. 

But  this  fuppcfition,  we  fee  by  what  hns  been  faid  aU 
ready,  is  by  no  means  true.  The  fuperllru61nre  there- 
fore built  on  this  foundation  falls  entirely  to  the  ground. 
We  all  grant,  that  in  feme  infranccs  afflidions  are  in- 
tended for  the  good  of  the  fuiierers.  A  proof  of  this, 
which  needed  no  proof,  }3r.  C.  has  produced  out  of  the 
eighty-ninth  pfalm.  On  this  foundation  extended  in  his 
own  imagination  to  comprehend  ail  inilances  of  afflidlion, 

he  built  an    argument  in  v.liich  he    triumplied. Now 

iincc  there  are  -hofe  ie^'cral  indances  of  calamity  before 
mentioned,  which  Dr.  C.  would  not  pretend  v/cre  defign- 
ed for  the  fufFcrer's  good  in  this  life  ;  I  might  as  well  iup- 
pole  thit  no  other  inilances  of  calamity  arc  defigned  for 
the    Amerers   good  in  this  life;  c.vA    then  adopt  Dr.  C's 

drain 


fufftr   more  than  D'tfc'ipline  Tj 

ftrain  of  ardent  dedumationy  in  manner  following  :  If  evil 
punifhmcnt  or  mifery  in  the  prefent  life,  be  not  intended 
for  the  good  of  the  patients  tjiemfelves,  but  to  lapport, 
the  authority  of  the  divine  law,  and  thus  fubferve  the  ge* 
neral  good  ;  why  not  in  the  next  life  \  Is  the  character  of 
God,  as  a  God  of  perfect  purity  and  Uriel  jufticc,  limited 
to  thiK  world  only  ?  Why  fhould  it  not  be  fuppofcd,  that 
the  infinitely  holy  God  has  the  fame  hatred  of  lin  in  the 
other  world  which  he  has  in  this  I  and  that  he  has  in  the 
next  ftate  the  fame  intention  which  he  has  in  this,  to  vin- 
dicate, by  punifhments,  his  law  and  government. 

The  truth  is,  that  as  fome  of  the  calamities  of  this  life 
arc  intended  for  the  patient's  good  in  this  life  and  others 
are  as  nianifeftiy  not  intended  for  his  good  in  this  life  ; 
nothing  certain  can  be  hence  concluded  concerning  the 
end  of  the  mifery  of  the  dannicd.  Nay  ;  if  it  were  cer- 
tain, that  all  the  calamities  of  this  life  are  intended  for 
the  patient's  good  in  this  life  or  that  they  are  not  intended 
for  his  good  in  this  life  ;  yet  it  could  not  be  certainly  thence 
(oncludcd,  that  the  miferies  of  the  damned  are  intended 
for  the  good  of  the  patients,  nor  tliat  they  are  not  in- 
tended for  the  good  of  the  patients.  But  this  point  muft 
be  determined  by  other  evidence,  the  evidence  of  reve- 
lation. 

If  it  fliould  be  faid,  that  though  fome  of  the  fufferings 
of  this  life  do  not,  in  this  life,  produce  good  to  the  pa- 
tients ;  *  yet  they  will  produce  good  to  them  in  the  future 
life  ;  it  will  be  faiiicient  to  reply,  that  this  wants  proof  ; 
that  it- is  a  main  point  in  the  prefent  difpute;  and  that  it 
ihould  be  taken  for  granted,  is  not  to  be  fuffcred. 

2.  It  is  alfo  urged  by  our  author,  **  That  the  whole 
^'  courfe  of  nature,  and  even  the  revelations  of  fcripturc 
**■  conllantly    fpeak  of  God,  as    the    univerfal  father,  as 

*'  well  as  governor  of  men What    now  is  the  tamper 

"^  and  conduct  of  fatiiers  on  earth  towards  their  offspring  ? 
'*■  They  readily  do  them  good  and  chafti^e  them  for  their 
'*  profit ;  but  they  do  not  punifti  their  children,  having 

'^  no   vievv  to  their    advantage.'' *'   And  fhall  v/e 

*'  fay  that  of  our  father  in  heaven,  v/liicli  we  cannot  fup- 
''  pofe  of  any  father  on  earth,  till  we  have  firlt  dive{l^:d 
**  him  of  the  heart  of  a  father?''  lie  abounds  in  pathetic 
difcourfe  of  the  fame  ftrain,  which  is  much  more  fuited  to 
work  on  the  imaginations  and  pallions  of  mankind,  than  on 

tlicir 


78  The  damned  iv'iU  in  Fa& 

their  rcafon.  The  foundation  of  all  this  difcourfe  is,  that  fa- 
thers on  earth,  acting  in  characler,  never  punifli  and  never 
can  punifli  their  children,  but  with  a  defign  to  promote 
their  peribnal  good.  But  would  Dr.  C.  himfelf  adven- 
ture to  lay  down  this  pofition,  and  to  abide  by  it  ?  Did 
never  a  wife  and  good  father  find  it  necf ITary,  to  pnnifh, 
and  even  to  cafe  out  of  his  family,  a  defperate  child,  to 
prevent  his  ruining  the  reft  of  the  children  ?  Was  there 
never,  or  can  there  poiiibly  never  be,  an  inftance  of  this? 
If  fuch  an  inllance  ever  has,  or  ever  may  occur,  the  ap- 
pearance of  argument  in  the  forecited  paflage,  vaniihes  at 
once.  Not  only  dofuthei's  iind'it  neceffary  to  punifh  def- 
perate children,  without  any  profped  of  their  perfonal 
<yood  ;  but  verv  freo.uently  do  kinrs.  Vovernors  and  chief 
jnagillrates  iind  this  necelTarA'' with  regard  to  their  fubjefts. 
Now  in  the  fcripture,  God  much  cftener  illuilrates  his 
character,  by  that  of  a  king,  a  prince,  a  fovereign  lord, 
than  by  that  of  a  father.  And  askings,  &c.  often  find  it 
neceffary  to  inflict  capital  and  other  puniihments,  without 
any  view  to  the  perfonal  good  of  the  fufferers  ;  we  may 
hence  deduce  an  argument,  that  God  alio  will  puniih  many 
of  his  rebelhous  fubjeits,  without  any  view  to  their  per- 
fonal good  ;  but  to  fupport  his  m.oral  government,  to  be 
an  example  of  terror  to  others,  and  thus  to  fecure  the 
eeneral  o-ood :  and  tliis  arp-ument  would  be  at  leafr  as 
iirong  as  that    of  Dr.  C.  juil  cited. 

3.  It  may  be  pleaded,  that  though  calamities  in  thk 
life  do  not  always  ifTue  in  the  fufferers  good  ;  yet  God 
may  compenfate  them  in  the  future  flate,  for  the  lofs  or 
fuffering,  of  which  they  are  the  fubjefts  in  this  life. 
Thus  our  author,  ^'  It  is  pollible  that  the  evils  which  a- 
•'  ny  fuffer  in  this,  may  be  made  up  to  them  in  another 
*•  ftate."* It  is  granted,  that  God  is  able*  to  com- 
penfate his  creatures  for    the   evils  of  this  life  ;  but    that 

he  in  fad  will  do  it  in  all  cafes,  is  to   be  proved. Be- 

fides  ;  the  very  idea  of  ccinpenlation  is  inconfiilent  with 
the  idea  of  difciplinary  punifhment  and  that  all  the  evils 
of  both  this  life  and  the  future  are  neceifary  and  are  in- 
tended for  the  p-ood  of  thole  vvho  fufFer  thema.  For  if 
this  idea  bejuft,  what  foundation  is  there  for  compenla- 
tion?  Will  a  father  com^pcnlatc  a  child  ^or  the  pain  of 
that  difcipline  which  is  abfoluicly  neceffary  fol'  his  good 
m  ■  'and 


fiiffer  more  than  DifdpUne,  yg 

and  moft  wifely  adapted  to  it  ?  No  man  would  ever  think 
of  it.  Compenfation  fuppofes,  that  the  evil  for  which 
compenfation  is  made,  has  been  iniiided  from  other  mo- 
tives, than  a  regard  to  the  good  of  the  fufFerer.  And 
if  evil  may  in  one  indnnce  be  infliclcd  from  other  motives 
than  a  regard  to  tlie  good  of  the  iufferer  ;  it  may  in  any 
other  inftance  in    which  juftice  and    vvifdom   admit  of  it  ; 

and  if  in  this  ftate,   in  the   future  too. If    the    evils  of 

life  be  intended  for  the  good  only  of  the  fubjeds,  we  ma}'* 
as  vv'ell  talk  of  compenfating  a  man  for  the  pain  of  draw- 
ing a  tooth  which  is  a  perpetual  torment  to  him  ;  or  for 
the    difapreeable    tafte    of   the  dofe    which  cures  him   of 

o 

the  colic  ;  as  to  talk  of  compenfatmg  him  for  the  calami- 
ties of  life.  The  faints  will  indeed  be  rewarded  for  their  pa- 
tience under  thefe  calamities  ;  and  this  part  of  their  he— 
linefs  is  doubtlefs  as  amiable,  and  is  as  properly  as  any 
part  of  their  holineis  the  objecl  of  the  complacency  of  the 
Deity,  and  of  thofe  rewards  which  are  the  fruits  of  that 
complacencyi  But  thofe  rewards  are  not  to  be  coniidered 
as  compenfations  of  lofTcs  or  of  damages.  The  very  idea  of 
compenfation  implies,  that  that  for  which  compenfation 
is  made,  is  on  the  v/hcle  an  evil  to  the  perfon  compenfa- 
ted.  Bat  the  very  idea  that  prcfent  evils  are  neceffary 
and  conducive  to  th-  good  of  the  fubjecls,  implies,  that 
on  the  whole  they  are' no  evils  to  the  fubjedts. 

It  is  nov/  fubmitted  to  the  reader,  whether  the  dodrine, 
that  the  damned  v/ili  in  fa6t  fufFer  no  other  puniihm.enr, 
than  that  which  is  fubferv^ient  to  their  peribnal  good,  be 
not  in  many  refpeds  moft  glaringly  inconliitent  with  the 
fcriptures  ;  and  whether  it  be  not  equally  irreconoileable 
with  thsir  general  tenor  as  with  many  particular  pafTages  ; 
andalfo  with  many  narts  of  Dr,  C^s  book. 


C  H  A  P, 


8o  Examination  of  Dt\  C^y 


CHAP.     IV. 

Containing  an  examination  of  Dr.   C^s    arguments  to  prove 
cndlefs  punijhment  inconfiftent  ivith  jujtice^ 

HAT  the  endlefs  puniihment  of  the  damned  is  incon-r 
fiftent  with  juftice,  is  pofitively  and  abundantly  af- 
ferted  by  Dr.  C.  and  other  advocates  for  univerfal  fal— 
vation.  Whether  the  arguments  which  the  Do6tor  offers 
to  prove  the  injuftice  of  endlefs  punifliment,  be  conclufive, 
is  the  fubje<rc  of  our  inquiry  in  this  chapter. 

Before  we  proceed  to  this  inquiry,  it  feems  necelTary, 
to  explain  the  meaning  of  the  propofition — That  t^e  end- 
lefs punifnment  of  the  damned  is  confiftent  with  juftice, 

I  DO  not  find  that  Dr.  C.  hath  any  where  given  us  a  de- 
fmition  of  his  idea  oijujiicej  or  of  a  juft  puniihment,  which 
is  certainly  a  great  omifiion.  The  Chevalier  i?^m/^y  gives 
the  following  definition  of  the  divine  juflice  :  '^  Juftice  is 
that  perfedion  of  God,  by  w^hich  he  endeavours  continual- 
ly to  make  all  intelligences  juft.*''  But  with  the  fame  rea- 
fon  he  might  have  defined  the  divine  mercy  to  be,  not  that 
perfection  in  God,  by  v/hich  he  is  hirafelf  inclined  to  the 
exercife  of  mercy  to  the  miferable  ;  but  that  by  which  he 
endeavours  to  make  all  intelligences  merciful ;  and  the  di- 
vine love  to  be,  not  that  perfeftion  in  God,  by  which  he 
loves  his  creatures,  but  that  by  v^hich  he  endeavours  to 
make  other  intelligences  exercife  love.  By  this  definition 
of  juftice  a  human  judge,  who  wrones  every  man,  whofe 
caufe  is  brought  before  him,  and  yet  endeavours  to  make 
other  men  juft,  is  a  juft  judge. 

TiiEwovd juftice  is  ufedin  three  diiTercnt  fenfes.  Some- 
times it  means  commutative  juftice,  fome times  difirlhuiive, 
and  fometimes  general  or  public  juftice.  Conmiutative  juf- 
tice refpe6ts  property  only,  and  the  equal  exchange  and  re- 
ftitution.ofit.  Dif/rihutive  juiiicc  is  the  equal  diftribution 
of  rewards  and  puniihments,  and  it  relpects  the  perfonal 
rights  and  demerit  of  the  perfon  rewarded  or  puniihed. 
General  or  public  juftice  refpefts  w^hat  are  called  the  rights 
of  a?  community,  whether  a  city,  ftate,  empire,  or  the  uni- 
verle.     This  kind  of  juftice  requires  the  public  good;  and 

whenever 
*  Principles,  Vol.  I.  p.  .y?:;.    . 


Arguments  from  Jujlics*  Sj 

^'henever  that  is  violated  or  neglecled,  the  public  is  Injured^ 
This  k'lT:  ufe  of  [he  word  juflice,  though  very  frequent,  yet 
is  an  improper  uie  of  it;  becaufe  to  prci.flife  juilice  in  this 
fenfe,  is  no  other  than  to  act  from  public  i'pint,  or  from 
love  to  the  community,  and  with  rcfpecl  to  the  univerfe,  it 
is  the  very  fame  with  general  benevolence. 

Now  when  we  inquire,  whether  the  endlefs  puniihment 
of  the  wicked  be  conililent  with  juilice,  no  man  will  fup- 
pofe  that  the  v/ord  jiiitice  means  commutative  juitice  ;  be- 
caufe the  inquiry  has  no  refpecl  to  property.  Nor  is  the 
word  to  be  underftood  to  mean  general  or  public  juilice. 
It  is  indeed  an  ijnportant  inquiry,  whether  the  endlefs 
puniiliment  of  a  njan  dying  in  impenitence,  be  confiilent 
v/ith  the  general  intereil  of  the  univerfe  ;  but  this  is  not 
the  fubject  to  b>-  confidered  in  this  chapter.  The  queftioa 
to  be  confidered  in  this  and  in  one  or  two  fucceding  chap- 
ters, is,whether  toinflici:  an  endlefs  punifhment  on  a  man  dy- 
ing in  impenitence,be  an  acl  of  ^wy/r it'*// jV^t  juitice, or  be  a  treat- 
ment of  him  by  his  judge,  correfpondent  and  no  more  than 
correfpondent  or  proportioned  to  his  demerit,  to  his 
crimes,,  or  to  his  moral  conduct  and  perfonal  cbarafter. 
This  is  a  queftion  entirely  different  from  the  follovring ; 
Whether  the  infliction  of  an  endlefs  puniiliment  on  a  lin- 
ner  dying  in  impenitence,  be  fubi'ervient  to  the  good  of  the 
univerfe  ?  A  puniihment  or  calamity  inflicted  on  a  pcrfcn 
may  be  fubfervient  to  the  public  good  of  a  community, 
yet  not  be  deferved  by  him  on  account  of  his  perfonal 
crimes.  It  was  for  tlie  o-ood  of  the  Roman  reoublic,  that 
Reguhs  flieuld  return  to  certain  death  at  Carthage  ;  yet 
he  did  not  defcrve  that  death  ;  it  was  not  correfpondent 
to  bis  moral-  chara6:er.  On  the  other  hand,  many  a 
villain  h-'^s  by  his  attrocious  crimes  deferved  death  ;  yet 
h^j  reafon  of  his  power,  his  connections,  or  the  peculiar 
circunijaances  of  the  (tate,  it  could  not,  conliftently  with 
the  public  good  be  inflicted  on  him.  So  that  in  a  variety 
ofinitances  public  juflice  or  the  public  good  is  promoted  by 
private  or  diltributive  injudice  ;  and  dirtribudve  ju.lice 
would  be  productive  of  public  injury  or  damage.  And  in 
fome  cafes  the  public  good  may  be  promoted  by  a  proceed- 
ing, which,  though  not  in  the  diltributive  lenft  "^/'.dt, 
yet  is  not  accordina:  to  diitributivc  iulticc.  An  innocent 
perlbn  may  choofe  to  be  made  the  fubjed  of  fufterings, 
in  the  ftead  of  a  criminal.     Therefore  though  the  furfer- 

M  iag3 


^3  j^n  Exa7ninatton  of  Dr.  Cs 

ings  Avhich  he  clioofes  to  endure,  be  inflided  on  lilm,  no 
injuftice  is  done  him :  nor  will  it  be  pretended,  that  this 
proceeding  is  according  to  ftri6l  diftributire  jnftice,  which 
requires  the  criminal  to  be  puniihed  and  not  his  fubftitute. 
Yet  it  may  promote  the  good  of  the  community,  or  fecure 
it  from  great  detriment  by  a  relaxation  of  its  laws  and  go- 
vernment ;  as  in  the  well  known  inflance  of  Zaleucus, 
w  ho  put  out  one  of  his  own  eyes^  to  fupport  the  authority 
of  the  law  againfl  adultery,  which  his  own  fon  had  vio- 
lated. 

On  the  whole,  when  we  inquire  whether  the  endlefs 
punilhment  of  the  damned  be  confident  with  juftice,  the 
word  ji(f lice  rm^ns  diftrihutive  ]\\idce.  This,  as  has  been 
already  obferved,  refpecls  the  perfonal  merit  or  demerit 
of  the  man  rewarded  or  puniflied.  A  man  fuffers  diflri- 
butive  injuftice  when  he  is  not  treated  as  favourably  as  is 
correfpondent  to  his  perfonal  conduct  or  character.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  has  juftice  done  him,  when  he  is  treat- 
ed in  a  manner  correfpondent  to  his  perfonal  conduct  or 
character.  A  juft  punilhment  then  is  that  which  is  pro- 
portioned or  correfpondent  to  the  crime  punifhed.  But  it 
may  be  further  inquired,  v/hen  is  a  punifhment  propor- 
tioned to  the  crime  punifhed  ?  To  this  the  anfwcr  icems 
to  be,  when  by  the  pain  or  natural  evil  of  the  punifhment, 
it  exhibits  a  juft  idea  of  the  moral  evil  or  ruinous  tendency 
of  the  crime,  and  a  proper  motive  to  reftrain  all  intel- 
ligent beings  from  the  commifFion  of  the  cnme. 

FuRTHEK  to  elucidate  this  matter,  let  it  be  obferved, 
that  any  crime,  by  relaxing  the  laws  and  by  weakening 
the  government,  is  a  damage  to  the  community  ;  and  de- 
ferves  juft  fo  much  puniflmient,  as,  by  reftoring  the  pro- 
per tone  of  the  laws,  and  proper  ftrength  to  the  govern- 
ment, will  repair  that  damage.  The  chief  evil  of  any 
crime,  on  account  of  which  it  principally  deferves  punifh- 
ment, confifts  in  the  relaxation  of  the  laws  and  govern- 
ment of  the  community  in  whicli  the  crime  is  committed. 
For  example,  the  chief  evil  of  theft  is  not  that  a  certain 
perfon  is  clandeftinely  deprived  of  his  property.  His  pro- 
perty may  be  reftorejl  and  he  may  in  this  refped  fuffer  no 
damage.  Still  the  thief  deferves  punilhment.  If  a  man 
be  defamed,  the  chief  evil  is  not  that  the  perfon  defamed 
is  injured  by  the  lofs  of  his  reputation.  His  reputation 
may,  by  a  full  confellion  of  the  defamer  or  by  other  means, 

be 


Arguments  from  Ju/lke.  8j 

'be  reftored.  Still  the  defanier  may  deferve  pumfhment. 
If  a  man  be  murdered,  the  chief  evil  is  not  that  the  man 
is  deprived  of  his  life, and  his  iriends  and  the  community  are 
deprived  of  the  benefit  of  his  aid.  His  Ufe  may  have 
been  a  burden  to  himfelf,  to  his  friends  and  to  the  com- 
munity ;  or  he  may  by  divine  power  be  raifed  from  the 
dead.  Still,  in  either  cafe^  the  murderer  would  dcfervc 
punilhment. 

The  true  reafon^  why  all  thofe  criminals  would,  in  all 
thofe  cafes,  deferve  puniihment,  is,  that  by  their  refpec- 
tive  crimes  they  would  weaken  the  laws  and  government 
of  the  community,  thereby  would  break  in  upon  the  pub-" 
lie  peace,  good  order,  fafety  and  happinefs  ;  inftead  of 
thefe  would  introduce  confufion  and  ruin  ;  and  thus  would 
do  a  very  great  damage  to  the  community. — Therefore, 
they  would  refpecftively  deferve  juft  fo  much  punifhment, 
as  by  refloring  the  tone  of  the  laws  and  government, 
would  re^eltablifh  the  peace,  good  order,  fafety  and  hap- 
pinefs of  the  community,  and  thus  would  repair  the  da-r 
mage  done  to  the  community  by  their  crimes. — A  punifh- 
ment adequate  to  this  end  exhibits  by  the  natural  evil  of 
it,  a  juft  idea  of  the  moral  evil  of  the  crime,  and  a  pro- 
per motive  to  reftrain  all  from  the  commiflion  of  it  :  it  is 
therefore  duly  proportioned  to  the  crime,  is  correfpon- 
dent  to  the  conduct  of  the  criminal,    and  is  perfectly  juft. 

The  paiTages  in  which  Dr.  C.  declares  pojitlvely,  that 
the  endlefs  punilhment  of  the  wicked  would  beunjuft,  are 
very  numerous  ;  but  his  arguments  to  prove  that  it  would 
be  unjuft,  are,  fo  far  as  I  can  find,  very  few.  As  this  is 
a  capital  point  in  the  prefent  controverfy,  it  was  to  be  ex- 
pelled, that  he  would  go  into  a  formal  conlideration  of  it, 
and  give  us  his  reafons  methodically  and  didlinclly.  In- 
ftead of  this,  in  all  the  various  parts  of  his  book  in  which 
he  declaims  moft  vehemently  on  the  fubjed,  there  are 
\'ery  few  in  which  I  find  an  attempt  to  argue.     Thefe  are 

as  follows  : *^  An  eternity  of  mifcry  fwallows  up  all 

**  proportion  :  or  though  there  fiiould  be  fome  diiference 
*•  in  the  degree  of  pain,  it  is  fuch  a  difference,  I  fear,  as 
^*  will  be  fcarce  thought  vvorthy  of  being  brought  into  the 
^''  account,  when  the  circumftance  of  endlefs  duration  is 
'^  annexed  to  it.''* "  The  fmallnefs  of  the  diiTerence 

bctv/een  thofe  in  this  worid^  to  whom  the  character  of 


a 


*'  'luichd 


*   P<?f^e   ""^' 


fj^  jin  Ey:ct7mnation  of  Dt\   Os 

^'  ivtckedhe\or\g%  in  the  loweft  fenfe,  and  tliofe  to  whom 
'*  the  chara(::t;er  of  good  is  applicable  in  the  like  fenfe, 
'*  renders  it  incredible,  that  fuch  an  amazingly  great  dil^ 
^'  ference /hould  be  made  betv-v'cen  them  in  the  future. 
<"'  The  difference  between  them,  according  to  the  com- 
<*  mon  opinion,  will  be  doubly  infinite. — For  the  re- 
<*  ward  and  puni/hment  being  both  eternal,  they  raufl  at 
<'  lafc  become  infinite  in  magnitude.  How  to  reconcile 
<^  this  with  the  abfolutely  accurate  impartiality  of  God,  is, 

<^  I  confefs,   beyond  me.""^ ^'  It  does  not  appear   to 

<^  me,  that  it  would  be  honourable  to  the  infinitely  righ- 
<^  teous  and  benevolent  governor  of  the  world,  to  make 
'^  wicked  men  everlafiingly  miferable.  For  in  what  point 
^^  of  light  foever  Vv'e  take  a  view  of  Im,  it  is  certainly  in 
^^  its  nature  a  finite  evil.  It  is  the  fault  of  a  finite  crea- 
«'  ture,  and  the  eiFecl:  of  finite  principles,  paffions  and  ap- 
*'  pctites.  7'o  fay  therefore,  that  the  fmner  is  doomed  to 
*'  infinite  mifery,  for  the  finite  faults' of  a  finite  life,  looks 
«^  like  a  refleftion  on  the  infinite  juftice,  as  well  as  good- 
<^  nefs  of  Gcd.  I  know  it  has  been  often  nr^-red,  th:^t 
<^  fin  IS  an  infinite  evil,  becaufe  committed  againft  an  in- 
*^  finite  object  ;  for  which  reafon  an  infinite  puniihrnent  is 
«'  no  more  than  its  due  defer t.  But  this  metaphyfical 
<^  nicety  proves  a  preat  deal  too  much,  if  it  proves  any- 
<*  thing  at  all.  For  according  to  this  way  of  c.rguing, 
♦  '  all  fuiners  mufl  fuifer  the  utnioft  in  degj-ec^  as  v/eli  as  in 
*'  duration  ^  otherwife  they  will  notfufFer.fo  much  as  they 
<'  might  do,  and  as  they  ought  to  do  :  v/hich  is  plainly 
'^  inconfiftent  with  that  difference  the  fcripture  often 
'^  declares  there  fhall  be  in  the  punifnment  of  v/icked  men, 
'*  according  to  the  difference  there  has  been  in  the  na-^ 
'f  tuie  and  number  of  their  evil  deeds. '^ f 

These,  I  think,  are  the  palTages  in  which  Dr.  C.  offers 
his  moALp'aufible  and  ftrong,  if  not  his  only,  arguments, 
to  prove,  that  endlefs  puniihrnent  is  not  confiftentwith  juf- 
lice  ;  and  the  arguments  here  offered  are  thefe  three  on- 

\Y That    endlefs  puniljiment  implies    fuch    a  different; 

tJ*eatment  of  the  fmallcfi:  fmners  and  fmalleft  faints,  as  is 
out  of  all  j^roportion  to  their  rcfpecTtive  characters ;  it  is 
therefore  incredible,  andnot  rccdncileable  with  the  juflice 

and    impartiality   of  God. That  endlefs  punifhment  is 

out  of  all  proportion  to  the  demerit  of  fin,    as  the  latter  is 

liiiitc 

*  Page  320.  f  Page  361.  _ 


Arguments  from  J  lift  ics^  ^j; 

finite,tlie  foriner  infinite. That  endlefs  punijlimeht,  oil 

account  of  the  infinite  evil  of  fm,  as  committed  againft  a 
God  cf  infinite  glory,  implies,  that  future  punifliment  is  in- 
finite in  degree  too,  and  therefore  that  the  pUnilhiiient  of 
all  the  damned  is  equal. 

I.  That  endlefs  punidiment  implies  fuch  a  ditTereht 
treatment  of  the  fmallefl  fmner  and  fmalleft  faint,  as  is  out 
of  all  proportion  to  their  re  fpecTsve  characters;  it  is  there- 
fore incredible,  and  not  reconcilcrxble  vvith  the  jufbice  and 
impartiality  of  God.     On  this  I  obferve, 

1.  That  there  is  an  infinite?  difference  between  the  treat- 
ment of  tv/operfons,one  ©f  whom  is  lent  to  endlefs  mifery, 
the  other  not,  is  readily  granted.  But  that  the  one,  v^ho 
is  fent  to  fuch  a  punifiinient,  is  treated  nnjuftly,  is  not 
granted  ;  and  to  aflert,  thjlt  he  is  treated  unjulUy,  is  to 
beg-AXidi  not  to  prove  the  thing  in  queflion. 

2.  That  of  the  tv/o  perlons  now  fuppofcd,  one  fliculd 
be  treated  according  to  his  demerits,  and  the  other  by  the 
'^  bonnalefs  goodnefs  of  God/'  ihould  be  exempted  from 
that  punilhment,  to  which,  by  his  demerit,  he  is  juftly  lia- 
ble, is  nothing  incredible  or  unjuft.  Surely  the  gracious 
exemption  of  one  man  from  that  punifliment,  which  he  de- 
ferves,  renders  not  the  punifliment  of  another  unjuil,  which 
would  cthrrwife  be  juft. 

3.  As  there  is  noinjuflice  in  the  cafe  now  (lated,  fo  nei- 
ther is  there  any  partiality  in  it.  There  is  no  partialitj'- 
in  the  condiicl  of  the  Supreme  Magiilrate,  v/ho  condemns 
one  crimiiaal  according  to  his  demerit,  and  pardons  another 
criminal  equally  guilty.  But  partiality  is  then  pradifed, 
when  of  tv.'o  real  and  knov/n  criminals,  one  is  condemned 
by  the  judge  •  the  other  cleared,  on  the  pretence,  that  he 
is  innocent.  So  that  this  whole  argum^ent  from  the  incre- 
dibly different  treatment  of  the  fmallefl  {inner  and  fmallefl 
faint,  whofe  characters  are  fo  nearly  on  a  level,  fo  far  as  it 
fuppofes  the  different  treatment  to  be  incredible,  on  ac- 
count of  the  endlefs  punilhment  of  the  fmner,  is  a  mere 
begging  of  the  queftion.  It  takes  for  granted,  that  the 
fmner  does  not  deferve  an  endlefs  punifliment.  So  far  as 
it  fuppofes  the  different  treatment  to  be  incredible,  on  ac- 
count of  the  infinite  reward  or  happinefs  befiowed  on  the 
faint,  it  fuppofes,  that  God  in  his  infinite  goodnefs,  cannot 
beflov/  an  infinite  good  on  a  creature,  who  in  his  own  pcr- 
fou  is  entirely  unworthy  of  it.     It  alfo  fuppofes^,  that  if  c-  ' 

ver 


BC  Exafnlization  of  Dr.  Cs 

ver  God  pardon  any  fmner,  he  muft  pardon  all,  \vhore  de- 
merits are  no  more  than  that  of  the  man  pardoned  ;  other- 
wife  he  is  partial  :  and  for  the  fame  reafon^  that  if  ever  he 
condemn  any  fmner,  he  mull  condemn  all  thofe,  whofe 
characters  are  equally  linful  with  that  of  the  man  con- 
demned. But  it  is  prefumed,  that  thefe  fentiments  will  be 
avov/ed  by  no  man. 

II.  The  next  argument  is,  That  endlefs  punifliment  is 
out  of  all  proportion  to  the  demerit  of  fin,  as  the  former  is 
infinite,  the  latter  finite. — As  this  is  a  matter  of  great  im- 
portance in  the  prefent  difpuie,   it   requires  our  particular 

attention. How  then  does  Dr.  C.  make   it  appear,  that 

fin  is  a  finite  evil  ?   By  thefe  feveral  coniiderations,   that  it 

is  the  fault  of  a  finite  creature, durinp-  a  finite  life, 

and  the  efred  of  finite  principles,  paiFions  and  appetites  ; 
the  fum  of  which  is,  that  it  is  impollible  for  a  creature,  in 
a  finite  duration,  to  commit  an  infinite  crime;  or  which 
is  the  fame  thing,  a  crime  which  iliail  deferve  an  endlefs 
puniihment. As  to  this  let  it  be  obfcrved, 

I.  That  if  it  be  impolFible  for  a  creature,  in  a  finite  du- 
ration, to  commit  a  crime  which  fhall  deferve  an  endlefs 
punifhment,  it  is  as  really  againil  Vv^hatDr.  C.  holds,  as  a- 
'  gainft  theoppofite  fyfbem.  He  fays,*  '^  If  the  next  is  a 
"fiiate  of  puniPnment  intended  to  fatisfy  the  juflice  cf  God, 
*' 'tis  impo'lible  ail  men  fhould  be  finally  faved:"  that  is, 
if  in  the  next  fr^te  a  puniihment  be  iniliaed,  wiiich  fatl:fies 
juflice,  all  men  will  not  be  favcd.  But  a  priuifmnent, 
which  fatisfies  ]aftice  is  a  perfe^flly  jult  puniihment.  It  is 
therefore  juft,  that  fome  men  {hould  finally  not  be  faved  ; 
or  it  isjiiil:,  that  on  account  of  their  iins,  they  be  without 
end  excluded  from  falvation.  And  what  is  the  endlel's  ex- 
clufion  of  a  fmner  from  falvation  on  account  of  his  ims,  but 
an  endlefs  puniihment  inflicled  for  the  fault  of  a  finite  crea- 
ture, committed  hi  a  finite  life,  and  the  effect  of  finite  prin- 
ciples, paifions  and  appetites  ? ThispaiTage  of  Dr.  C.  is 

a  plain  and  full  conceffion  both  of  the  juftice  of  endlefs  pu- 
niihment, and  of  the  iaiinite  evil  of  iin. 

That  lin  is  an  infinite  evil,  or  an  evil  defer ving  an  end- 
lefs puniihment,  is  implied  in  all  thofe  paiTages  alio,  in 
which  Dr.  C.  alTerts,  that  the  ialvarion  of  all  men,  and  e- 
ven  of  the  damned,  after  they  have  fuftered  all  which  they 
ever  are  to  fufrcr^  is  ths  fruit  cf  bQiin:'!''fs  and  '::t:>:hciujiivie' 


Jrgumc7its  from  Jufilcf,  Sf 

goodnefs,  tM finite  indulgence  end  love,  &c.  In  his  argument 
that  the  puniihment  of  the  damned  is  difciplinaiy,  he  fays,* 
^*  That  God  m.ufl  in  the  other  world,  as  well  as  this,  be 
''  difpofed  to  m^ke  it  evident,  that  he  is  a  being  of  houndlefs 
''  and  inexhauftihle  gcodnefs.^^  It  is  plain  by  the  connecti- 
on, that  the  Dodlor  means,  that  the  deliverance  of  ihc 
damned,  in  confequence  of  a  punifliment,  which  is  condu- 
cive to  their  good,  is  an  aftof  houndlefs  and  inexhauftihle 
goodnefs. 

But  that  the  goodnefs  of  ihst  acl  of  deliverance  is  not 
greater  than  the  evil  or  punifl-ment  from  which  it  delivers, 
will  be  conceded  by  all.  There  is  goodnefs  in  delivering 
a  man  from  the  tooth-ache  ;  but  no  man  will  pretend,  that 
this  is  an  a6t  of  houndlefs  and  inexhauftihle  goodnefs.  To  de- 
liver from  the  mifery  of  a  thoufand  years  torment  in  hell, 
is  an  act  of  far  greater  goodnefs.  But  this  is  not  sn  ad  of 
houndlefs  uwdinex  hat  ft:  hie  gQod.T^c{s.  Nor  is  any  aft  of  de- 
liverance worihy  of  thefe  epithets,  unlefs  it  deliver  from 
an  evil,  which.is  houndlefs  and  inexhauftihle.  Doubtlefs 
the  acl  of  God  in  delivering  a  Tinner  from  the  puniihment 
of  hell  is  called  aa  acl  of  houndlefs  and  inexhauftihle  good- 
nefs with  refpecl  to  the  greatnefs  of  the  benefit  conferred 
by  that  deliverance,  and  not  with  refpecl  to  the  inherent 
and  elTential  goodnefs  of  God.  If  the  latter  be  Dcclor 
C's  m^eaning,  v.  hat  he  fays  is  no  illuftration  of  the  divine 
goodnefs  in  delivering  a  finner  from  the  pains  of  hell :  he 
might  have  faid  the  \c.vp.s.  concerning  the  deliverance  of  a- 
ny  perfon  guilty  or  innocent,  from  the  tooth-ache,  or  from 
the  prick  of  a  pin.  He  fays,  that  God  in  the  other  world, 
as  well  as  this,  muft  be  difpofed  to  make  it  evideiit,  that  he 
is  a  being  of  houndlefs  and  inexhauftihle  goodnefs.  But 
if  the  dehverance  of  a  finner  from  the  pains  of  hell  be  not 
a  houndlefs  benefit,  it  does  not  make  it  evident,  that  God 
is  a  being  of  houndlefs  goodnefs.  If  it  be  a  houndlefs  be- 
nefit, the  evil  delivered  from  is  houndlefs.  If  therefore  the 
deliverance  of  th^  damned  from  the  torments  of  hell,  he 
an  aft  and  a  proof  of  houndlefs  and  inexhauftihle  goodnefs, 
as  the  Doftor  holds,  the  evil  from  which  they  are  deliver* 
ed,  and  to  v/liich  they  are  expofed  by  the  divine  lav/,  is 
boundlels  and  inexhauftihle.  But  they  arc  not  by  the  di- 
vine law  expofed  to  a  greater  punifiim.ent  than  they  juftly 
deferve  :  therefore  they  juftly  deierve  a  boundlels  or  inex- 
hauftihle puniihment  :  or  confeq^uence  fm,  bv  which  thcv 
*  r.  3^6.  '  «icfei:vi 


8S>  An  ExamhiatiOn  cfDr.  CV 

deferve  this  puniihment,  is  a  bpundlefs  and  inexhauftible  or 
aji  innnitjs  evil. 

Agajn,  Dr.  C.  in  the  words  of  Mr.  IVhiJhn^  fay?,* 
'MVIapy,pr  all  of  them, "[the  darnned]  '^inay  poifiblybe  re- 
'' covered  and  faved  at  lall,  by  the  infinite  indulgence  and 
^' love  of  their  creator.''  The  lame  obferv^ations,  which 
were  made  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  are  applicable  here. 
It  cannet  be  the  meaning  of  Dr.  C.  that  the  recovery  ©f 
the  damned  i&  in  no  other  fenfe  a  fruit  or  proof  pf  the  in- 
finite indulgence  and  love  of  their  Creator,  than  the  reco- 
very of  a  peribn  in  this  life  from  the  fmalleft  difeafe,  or  ca- 
lamity ;  or  the  deliverance  of  even  an  innocent  being  from 
fome  flight  evil.  A  iefs  degree  of  indulgence  and  love, 
than  that  which  is  infinite,  would  be  fufficient  for  thefe  re- 
coveries, or  deliverances.  And  if  nothing  ihcrt  of  infinite 
indulgence  and  love  can  recover  the  damned,  then  their 
recovery  is  a  proof  of  infinite  love.  Nov/  what  can  be  a 
proof  of  infinite  love,  but  the  beiiov/ment  of  an  infinite  be- 
nefit ?  And  no  benefit  coniifling  in  recovery  from  evil  is 
infinite,  unlefs  the  evil,  from  which  the  recovery  is  made^ 
be  infinite.  But  if  the  evil  from  which  the  damned  are 
fuppofed  to  be  recovered,  be  infinite,  fm,  by  which  they 
are  expofed  to  that  evil,  muft  itfelf  be  an  infinite  evil. 

If  here  it  fhould  be  objected,  that  the  damned  are  not 
indeed  delivered  from  •wrath,  by  boundiefs  p-oodncfs  and  in- 
finite love ;  but  that  boundiefs  goodnefs  and  infimite  love 
are  exercifed  ia  their  admiffion  to  the  pofitive  happinefs  of 
heaven  only  :  I  entreat  the  reader  to  obferve,  that  in  the 
former  of  ih.^  two  pafFages  lafl  quoted.  Dr.  C.  is  fpeaking 
of  God's  making  evident  his  boundiefs  and  inexhauftible 
goodnefs,  by  pitying  fmners,  and.  punilhing  them  in  order 
to  their  benefit,  or  by  the  deliver ancs  of  the  damned,  in 
confequence  of  a  difciplinary  pnnifimient:  In  the  other, 
he  is  fpeaking  in  the  words  of  Mr.   Whifton,  concerning 

x}s\^  recovery  of  the  damned. But  for  a  more  full  anfwer 

I  beg  leave  to  refer  the  reader  to  page  13,  where  this  fame 
objedion  has  been  flatcd  and  confide  red. 

That  fin  is  an  infinite  evil,  is  imphed  in  what  Dr.  C. 
holds  concerning  annihilation  ;  he  f«ys,  '*  Jf  the  fore- 
'^  going  fchcme  fiiculd  be  found  to  ha\;e  no  truth  in  it — 
*'  the  fecond  death  ought  to  be  confidered  as  that  which 
*•  will  put  an  end  to  their  ezducnce  both  in  ibul  and  body, 

*  P.  405. 


Argmnenis  from  Jvjlice.  Ja 

^^  {<)  that  they  fhall  be  no  mere  in  the  creation  of  God.'* 
By  this  it  appears  that  the  Doclor  held,  that  endlefs  an- 
nihilation would  be  no  unjuftpuniihment  of  fm.  But  end- 
lefs annihilation  is  an  endlffs  or  hif-7ih:  puniilnneRt.  It  is 
an  endlefs  lofs  of  not  only  ail  the  good  which  the  man  at 
prefent  enjoys  ;  but  of  ail  that  gcod  which  he  would  have 
enjoyed  throughout  eternity,  in  the  ftate  of  blifs  to  ^^  hich 
he  would  have  been  admitted,  if  he  had  never  fmned. 
This  in  an  endleis  duration  would  amount  to  an  infinite 
quantity  of  good.  Annihilation  therefore  is  an  infinite 
puniihment  both  as  it  is  endlefs^  and  as  the  quantity  of 
good  loll  is  infinite  :  and  Dr.  C.  in  allowing  that  endlefs 
annihilation  would  be  no  more  than  a  juft  puniflimient  of 
fm,  allows,  that  lin  deferves  an  infinite  purifnment,  or 
that  it  is  an  infinite  evil,  though  it  is  the  fault  cf  a  finite 
creature,  in  a  finite  life,  and  the  efFect  of  finite  principles, 
pallions  and  appetites.  If  therefore  it  be  a  difficulty  h:ird 
to  be  folved,  that  a  finite  creature,  in  a  finite  life,  Ihouid 
commit  an  infinite  evil,  meaning  a  crime  which  may  be 
juftly  punifhed  v.ith  an  endlefs  punirnm.ent ;  it  is  a  diS- 
culty  that  equally  concerned  Dr.  C.  as  myfeif :  and  it 
Vv'as  abfurd  for  him  to  objecl  that  to  others,  v/liich  lay 
equally  in  his  ovvn  way. 

It  may  be  objected  to  thefe  obfervations,  that  endleis 
annihilation  is  not  an  infinite  punifhm.ent,  becaufe  it  may 
be  inflicted  on  even  an  innocent  perfon.  God  having-  once 
communicated  exiflence  is  under  no  obligation  to  perpetu- 
ate it  ;  but  for  wife  ends  may  without  injury  fuiter  even  the 
moil  holy  bfhi8creatures,after  the  enjoyment  of  exiflence  and 
cfgood  for  a  feafon,to  drop  into  their  original  nothing. To  this 
it  may  be  anfivered  ;  that  this  objection  equally  proves,  that 
annihilation  is  no  punifhment  at  ctII,  as  that  it  is  net  an 
infinite  pnniflnnent.  When  an  innocent  creature  is  fufFcrcd 
in  fovereign  wifdom  to  drop  into  non-exiilence,  this  is  not 
only  not  an  infinite  punilbinent,  but  is  no  piniiihment  at 
all.  A  punifhment  is  foms  evil  brought  on  a  perfon,  in 
teftim.ony  that  his  conduct  is  difapproved  by  the  author  of 
that  evil.  This  is  not  the  cafe  in  the  annihilation  of  the 
innocent  perfon  now  fuppofed.  Therefore  it  equally  fol- 
lows from  the  pofhble  annihilation  of  an  innocent  creature, 
that  the  annihilation  of  the  v/icked  would  be  no  puni/li- 
ment  at  all,  as  that  it  would  not  be  an  infinite  punifhment. 
Annihilation  is  an  infinite  lofs,  and  in    that  icnfe^   an  in- 

N  frjite 


p9,  Jn  excmi' nation  of  Di\  Cs 

finite  evil,  to  an  innocent  perfon,  as  v/ell  as  to  one  ever  fb' 
guilty.  But  as  it  is  not  infiided  on  the  innocent,  in  tefli- 
mony  of  difapprobation,  it  is  not  a  punifiiment.  On  the 
other  hand,  If  it  be  inftifted  at  all  on  the  wicked,  it  is  in— 
flidled  in  exprefs  teliimony  of  the  divine  abhorrence  of 
their  conduct,  and  therefore  is  a  puniihment:  and  any  pu- 
niihment,  which  is  an  infinite  evd,  is  an  infinite  puniih- 
ment. 

To  illuflrate  this,  let  the  followinp-  exaniDle  be  taken. 
A  parent  liaring  begun  the  moll:  liberal  and  advantageous 
education  of  his  fon,  may  for  v/ife  reafons,  entirefy  drop, 
without  any  injuftice  to  his  fon,  the  courfc  of  education, 
which  he  had  begun,  and  may  fufFcr  him  to  grow  up  in 
comparative  ignorance.  This  would  not  only  not  be  a  very 
great  puniihment  of  his  fon,  but  no  punifnment  at  all. 
Whereas,  if  he  fhould  treat  his  fon  in  the  fame  manner, 
from  the  m.otive  of  teftifying  his  difpleafurc  at  fome  tri- 
flino;  levity  or  childilh  inadvertence,  it  would  be  both  a  real- 
and  a  very  great  punifhment :  and  though  it  would  confift 
in  a  lofs  or  privation,  yet  it  would  be  a  much  greater  punifh- 
ment than  the  infliction  of  a  very  confiderable  pofitive  pain. 
In  like  manner,  though  annihilation  may  be  inflicted  in  fuch 
a  manner,  as  to  be  no  punifiiment  ;  yet  when  it  is  inflifted 
with  the  declared  defign  of  exhibiting  the  divine  difplea-* 
fure  at  fm ;  it  is  a  far  greater  punifhment,  than  a  very  great 

and  long  temporary  mifery. That  annihilation  is  an  e- 

vil,  no  man  v/ill  deny,  who  allows  that  exilience  and  hap- 
pinefs  are  good.  And  if  it  be  an  evil,  it  isan  evil  equal  to 
the  good  loll  by  it^  taking  into  view  the  continuance  of 
that  lofs  ;  and  as  this  is  infinite,  final  annihilation  is  an  in- 
finite evil :  and  vv-henever  it  is  infiifted  in  teflimony  of  dif- 
approbation  of  the  condiicl:  cf  the  finner^  it  is  an  infinite 
punifhment. 

Doubtless  Dr.C,  was  of  the  opinion,  that  annihilation 
may  be  a  punimment,  as  it  was  his  belief,  that  if  his 
fcheme  of  imiverflilfldvation  be  not  true,  the  wicked  are 
to  be  annihilated.  He  would  doubllefs  have  allowed,  that 
annihilation  will  not  be  brought  on  them  in  teflimony  of 
the  divine  approbation  of  their  conduft.  Nor  can  it  be 
fuppofed  to  be  the  fruit  of  perfect  indifference  in  the  divine 
mind,  with  refped  to  their  conduct:  It  muft  therefore  be 
a  teflimony  of  divine  difapprebation,  v^hich  conflitutes  it  a 

punifhment 


Argiimsntsfronijufiicc*  4)1 

punifliment.  And  as  it  is  an  infinite  evil,  of  couiTc  it  is  an 
infinite  punifhment/* 

Perpiaps  it  may  be  further  faid,  in  cppofition  to  what 
has  been  now  advanced,  that  the  meaning  cf  thole  who  af- 
fert,  that  im  does  not  deferve  an  infinite  puniflmient,is  net, 
that  fin  does  not  deferve  an  endlefs  prlvat'ioity  or  fiegatlvs 
punifliment ;   but  that  it  does  not  deferve  an  endlefs  pojitive 

puniilinient,    confifting  in  pojitive  pains   or   tcnnfnis. If 

the  objedion  be  thus  explained,  it  comes  to  this  merely, 
that  fm  docs  indeed  deferve  an  endlefs  punifhment,  and  fo 
is  truly  and  properly  an  infinite  evil,  in  the  fenfe  in  which 
any  of  us  hold  it  to  be  an  infinite  evil :  but  it  is  not  fuch 
an  iniinite  evil,  as  to  deferve  fo  great  an  endlefs  punifli- 
ment, as  endlefs  pofitive  pain  and  torment.  But  this  bat- 
ing of  the  objection  entirely  ihifts  the  ground  of  tlie  difpute  : 
granting,  that  an  endlefs  punifliment  is  juftly  deferved  by 
Jin,  it  denies,  that  fo  greats  degree  of  puniflnnent,  as  end- 
lefs pofitive  mifery,  is  deferved  by  it.  Endlefs  anni'iilation 
is  equally  and  as  truly  an  endlefs  punifiiment,  as  endlefs  tor- 
ment. Ncr  is  there  any  ground  of  objedion  to  the  one 
more  than  to  the  other,  on  account  of  any  difference  in  du- 
ration, or  that  in  which  alone  the  infinity  confifts.  But  the 
ground  of  obje<5i:ion  to  endlefs  mifery,  rather  than  to  end- 
lefs annihilation,  is,  that  it  is  a  greater,  more  dreadful,  and 
more  intolerable  punifnment ;  or  a  greater  punifhment  in 
degree. 

Bkside;3,  not  every  degree  of  endlefs  pain  is  a  greater  e- 
yil  or  punifhment,  than  endlefs  annihilation.  No  man  will 
pretend,  that  any  flight  pain  continued  to  eternity,  is  fo 
great  an  evil,'  as  endlefs  annihilation  and  the  endlefs  lofs 
of  all  enjoyment  and  exiflcnce. 

On  the  whole,  as  the  ftatc  of  the  argument  before  us,  is 
nov/  wholly  fliifted  ;  as  it  is  granted  by  the  objedor,  that 
fill  deferves  an  mfinite  or  endlefs  punifiiment,  but  not  fo 
great  an  endlefs  punilhment,  as  is  implied  in  fome  degrees 
of  endlefs  pain  ;  every  thing  for  which  we  contend,  as  to 
the  duration  of  future   punifiiment,    is    granted.     It  is  not 

pretended 

*  To  prove  that  fin  does  not  deferve  an  endlefs  pnniflirnent, 
Dr.  Prieflly  too  fays,  ^^  There  is  no  proportion  between  finite 
'-and  infinite  J''*  Inftit.  Vol.  II.  p.  383.  Neither  is  there  a- 
ny  proportion  between  this  finite  life  and  endlefs  annihilation., 
Tet  Dr,  Prieflly  is  of  the  opinion,  that  endlefs  annihilation 
would  not  be  an  unjufi  punifrrnent  of  fin* 


'p'i  An  examination  of  Dr,  C^s 

pretended  by  the  advocstes  for  endlefs  punllhment,  that 
fin  deferves  an  inlinite  degree  of  endlefs  punifliment.  Nor 
do  they  pretend  to  determine  the  degree  of  punilhment, 
which  it  deferves.  It  becomes  all  to  leave  that  to  God, 
who  alone  is  able  to  determine  it.  The  advocates  for  tem- 
porary puailhment  v/ill  not  pretend  to  determine  the  de- 
gree of  temporary  punilhment,  which  fm  deferves.  The 
degree  of  future  puniihmcnt  is  not  the  fubjeft  of  the  pre- 
fent  difpute.  I  might  now  therefore  fairly  difmifs  the  fur- 
ther difcuiTion  of  the  infinite  evil  of  Im,  as  on  account  of 
the  conceiTions  already  mentioned,  wholly  impertinent  to 
the  prefent  difpute.  But  wiiliing  to  relieve  what  difficul- 
ties, and  to  throw  what  light  un  the  fubjecl,  I  can,  I  pro- 
ceed to  obferve, 

Perhaps  it  may  be  yet  further  pleaded,  that  the  oppo- 
fers  of  the  infinite  evil  of  fm  mean,  that  fm  does  not  de- 
ferve  fuch  an  endlefs  pofitive  mifery,  as  is  worfe  than  non- 

cxiftence. As  to  this,  befides  that  it  makes  the  fubjeft 

of  the  difpute  to  be  wholly  the  degree  of  punifhment,  and 
not  the  duration  of  it;  it  may  be  remarked,  that  it  is  grant- 
ed in  this  plea,  that  it  would  be  juit,  if  all  the  wicked,  who 
die  in  impenitence,  vv'ere  annihilated.  Annihilation  there- 
fore is  the  puniihment  deferved  by  the  leaft  fmner,  who 
dies  in  impenitence  ;  and  thofe,  whole  guilt  is  more  aggra- 
vated, deferve  a  greater  punifliment;  and  as  fome  are  incon- 
ceivably greater  linners  than  the  leaft,  they  deferve  an  in- 
conceivably greater  punifliment  than  annihilation.  Again, 
as  the  leaft  finner  deferves  annihilation,  fo  he  deferves  that; 
degree  of  pofitive  pain,  or  that  mixture  of  pain  and  plea- 
fure,  which  is  equally  undefirable,  or  equally  dreadful  as 
non-exiftence.  Therefore  thofe,  v/ho  are  inconceivably 
greater  Tinners  than  the  leaft,  deferve  that  degree  of  pofi- 
tive endlefs  pain,  which  is  inconceivably  worfe  and  more 
to  be  dreaded,  than  non-exiftence,  or  than  that  mixture  of 
pain  and  pleafure,  vvhich  is  equally  to  be  dreaded  as  non- 
exiftence.  Therefore  from  principles  conceded  by  Dr, 
C.  it  clearly  follows,  not  only  that  all  fmners  deferve  an 
endlefs  punifhment,  but  that  all  fmners,  except  thofe  of  the 
very  loweft  clafs,  defer\'e  that  degree  of  endlefs  mifery, 
which  is  worfe  than  non-exificnce;  and  which  is  not  only  an 
infinite  evil,  but  an  evil  doubly  infinite,  as  the  lofs  is  infinite, 
and  the  pofitive  mifery  exceeding  all  the  good  enjoyed,  be- 
ing endlefs,  is  infinite  too. 

"      Z,  The 


Arguments  from  Jufilce.  9^ 

2.  The  argument  of  Dr.  C.  now  under  confideration^ 
**  If  it  prove  any  thing,  proves  a  great  deal  too  miich/.^ 
as  it  fuppofes,  that  any  crime  can  juftl}^  be  puniflied  for  no 
longer  time,  than  was  confumed  in  the  perpetration  of  the 
crime. — That  this  isimphed  in  the  argument,  will  appear, 
if  v/e  confider,  that  if  it  be  once  allowed,  that  a  crime  may 
be  puniflied  for  a  longer  time  than  was  confumed  in  the 
perpetration  of  it,  the  whole  argument,  that  a  creature  can- 
not, in  a  finite  life,  commit  fuch  fin,  as  fliall  dcferve  an  Qn6^ 
lefs  punifhmenc,  mufl  be  given  up.  If  a  man  may  in  one 
day  commit  a  crime,  which  deferves  a  punifliment  to  ba 
continued  for  a  year,  v/ho  will  fay,  that  he  may  not  in  one 
day  commit  a  crime, which  ihall  deferve  a  punifnment  to  be 
continued  for  two  years,  for  ten  years,  or  during  his  life  > 
Therefore  in  determining  the  duration  of  the  punifhrnent, 
no  regard  at  all  is  had  to  the  time  taken  up  in  the  perpe- 
tration of  the  crime.  And  if  no  regard  be  had  to  this, 
there  is  no  abfurdity  in  fuppofmg,  that  the  crimes  of  a  fi- 
nite life  may  deferve  an  endlefs  punifhrnent.  To  fay,  that 
there  is  an  abfurdity  in  it,  fuppofes,  that  in  adjuilirig  ti;e 
punifliment,  a  regard  is  always  to  be  had  to  the  time  taken 
up  in  the  perpetration  of  the  crime  ;  which  is  contrary  to 
known  faft,  as  well  as  to  the  dedud:ion  juft  now  made. 
N.ay,  it  implies,  as  I  before  obferved,  that  no  juil  punifli- 
ment can  be  continued  tor  a  longer  time,  than  was  confu- 
med in  the  perpetration  of  the  crime. The  mere  dura- 
tion of  puniflmient  is  of  no  importance  or  confideration,  un- 
lefs  the  whole  punifhment  be  exceirive.  Therefore  perpetual 
imprifonment  is  inflicted  for  crimes,  which  are  perpetrated 
in  a  very  fliort  time. 

By  the  fame  argument,  by  which  Dr.  C.  undertakes  to 
prove, '  that  fm  does  not  deferve  an  endlefs  punifhment, 
any  man  may  undertake  to  prove,  that  it  dees  not  deferve 
a  punifliment  to  continue  for  ages  of  ages.  The  Doctor's 
argument  is,  that  fm  deferves  no  more  than  a  temporary 
punifliment,  becaufe  it  is  committed  in  a  finite  doration. 
vVith  the  fame  ftrength  of  argument  ir  may  be  faid  :  Sin 
deferves  not  a  punifhment  of  ages  of  ages,  bat  a  punifhment 
of  no  longer  duration,  than  feventy  years,  becaufe  it  is  com- 
mitted in  the  fpace  of  feventy  years. — It  is  manifeilj  that 
when  a  punifliment  of  ages  of  ages  is  infiicled  on  the  (inner, 
no  regard  is  had  to  the  time  confumed  in  the  pernstracion 
^f  fm.     And  if  it  bejufttoiuflid  a  punifhment  in  one  cafe, 

without 


^4  ^^  examination  of  Dr.  (Ps 

■without  regard  to  the  time  confumed  in  the  perpetration  of 
fin,  why  not  in  another  ?  If  becaufe  im  is  the  fault  of  a  fi- 
nite hfe,  it  does  not  deferve  an  infinite  punifliment ;  then 
becaufe  it  is  the  fault  of  a  hfe  of  lefs  duration,  than  that  of 
ages  of  ages,  it  does  not  deferve  a  punilhment  which  is  to 

continue  for  ages  of  ages. Or  how  will  Dr.  C.  prove, 

that  fin,  the  fault  of  a  life,  which  is  to  continue  only,  feventy 
years,  deferves  a  punifnment,  which  is  to  continue  for  ages 
of  ages?  I  pre  fume  he  v/ill  not  pretend  to  prove  it  by  any 
proportion  between  the  duration  of  feventy  years  and  that 
of  ages  of  ages;  but  merely  by  revelation.  From  the  fame 
fource  of  evidence,  we  undertake  \q  prove  both  the  reality 
and  juilice  of  endlefs  punidnnent.  And  it  is  as  ineffedual 
to  objedl  to  our  proof  of  endlefs  punifiimcnt,  the  difpropor- 
tion  between  an  infinite  and  a  finite  dm^.tion,  as  it  is  to  ob- 
ject to  his  proof  of  a  punilhment  of  ages  of  ages,  the  dif- 
proportion  between  the  duration  of  ages  of  ages,  and  that 
of  feventy  years.  I  grant  that  the  difproportion  between 
infinite  and  finite  duration,  is  greater,  than  that  between 
ages  of  ages  and  feventy  years.  But,  when  the  time  confu- 
med in  the  commilhon  of  a  crime  is  not  at  all  regarded,  let  the 
difproportion  be  what  it  may,nothing  can  be  thence  concluded  ♦ 
If  it  be  fliill  pretended,  that  a  regard  to  the  time  confu- 
med in  the  commillioD  of  fm  is  hr.d,  in  determining  the  du- 
ration of  its  puniihment :  I  alls:  what  regard  is  had  to  it  ?  Jf 
the  duration  of  tlie  puniihment  may  at  all  exceed  the  time 
confumed  in  the  commillion  of  fui,  how  m.uch  may  the  for- 
mer exceed  the  latter?  To  fay  there  is  an  infinite  difpro- 
portion betv/een  a  finite  life,  and  an  endlefs  eternity,  affords 
no  fatisfaftion.  So  there  is  a  very  great  difproportion  be- 
tween a  life  of  feventy  years,  and  ages  of  ages.  And  if  on 
the  principles  of  Dr.  C,  an  endlefs  puniihment  be  more  un- 
juft  than  that  of  ages  of  ages,  is  not  the  latter  on  the  fame 
principles  really  unjaft?  If  not,  then  a  punifnment,  the  du- 
ration of  v/hich  is  greatly  diiproportionate  to  the  time  con- 
fumed in  the  commifTion  of  the  crime,  is  Hill  jull  :  and  \\\\o 
will  undertake  to  fix  the  degrees  of  difproportion  between 
the  duration  of  the  punilhment,  and  the  time  confuined  in 
the  commifiion  of  the  crime,  which  are  coniifcent,  and  which 
ane  inconfifcent  with  juilice  ?  And  let  a  Veafcn  be  given, 
why  it  is  not  as  really  unjuft  to  infiicl;  a  punilhment,  the  du- 
ration of  which  is  greatly  difproportionate  to  the  time  fpent 
in  the  commillion  of  the  crime^    as    to'  inflict  a  punillnnent, 

the 


Jfguments  from  Jufl'ice,  ^^ 

the  duration  of  which  bears  no  proportion  to  the  time 
fpent  in  the  commiiTion  of  the  crime.  Why  would  not 
the  fame  argument  from  the  difproportion  of  the  dura- 
tion of  the  puniilimcnt,  to  the  tim.e  fpent  in  committing  the 
fm,  prove,  that  Adam  was  unjuflly  punifhed,  in  that  he 
was  condemned  to  eat  bread  in  the  fweat  of  his  face,  all  the 
days  of  his  lifc^  for  the  fm  of  eating  the  forbidden  fruit, 
which  was  doubtlefs  finifiied  in  a  very  fliort  time  ?  Alfo,that 
David  was  unjuftly  punilhed,  in  that  the  f^ard never  depart* 
ed  from  his  houfe,  becaufeof  his  fm  in  the  matter  of  Uriah? 

If  a  finite  creature,  in  a  finite  time,  cannot  commit  an  in- 
finite evil,  or  one  which  deferves  an  endlefs  punilhment,  it 
will  follov/,  that  even  our  Eord  Jefus  Chrill:  himfelf,  if  he 
be  a  real  creature,  though  the  firilborn  of  every  creature,* 
cannot,  if  he  v/ere  difpofed,  comm.it  an  infinite  evil.  Yet 
as  he  created  and  upholds  all  things  by  the  v/ord  of  his  pow- 
er^ he  doubtlefs  has  power  to  annihilate  all  things.  Now 
I  afk,  whether  if  Chrifl  fhould  annihilate  the  whole  crea- 
ted fyftem,  himfelf  only  excepted,  it  would  be  a  finite  or  an 
infinite  evil  ?  If  the  anfwer  fiiould  be,  that  it  would  be  a 
finite  evil,  I  would  afic  again,  whether  it  would  not  be  as 
great  an  evil  to  the  univerfe,  as  the  endlefs  mifeiy  of  one 

finner,  provided  he  deferves   that  mifery. 1  make  this 

this  provifo,  becaufe  Vv'e  do  not  plead  for  endlefs  punifh- 
ment  on  any  other  fiilppofition,  than  that  it  is  jufc  :  And  if 
it  Ihould  be  faid^  that  the  endlefs  punifhment  of  a  finner  is 
an  infinite  evil,  becaufe  it  is  unjuflly  inflicled,  this  would  be 
a  begging  of  the  c|uefl:ion :  it  would  alfo  follow,  that  on  the 
fuppofition  of  the  juilice  of  the  endlefs  punifhment  of  the 
fmner,  it  is  not  an  infinite  evil,  and  therefore  there  is  no 
foundation  for  the  objection  now  under  confideration,  that 
fin  a  finite  moral  evil  is  puniflied  with  an  infinite  natural  e- 

vil  or  puniflmient. Beiide,  that  the  endlefs  annihilation 

of  the  created  fy item  would  be  an  infinite  evil  in  the  very 
fame  fenfe,  in  which  the  endlefs  punifhment  of  the  damned 
is  an  infinite  evil,  is  evident  from  this  coniideration,  that 
the  punilhment  of  the  damned  is  not  pretended  to  be  infi- 
nite in  any  other  refpeft,  than  in  duration.  In  the  very 
fame  refpedl  the  endlefs  annihilation  of  which  v/e  fpeak, 
is  infinite. 

If 

*  So  far  as  can  he  judged  from  the  hook  of  Dr,  C*  now  un-^ 
der  exammatlon,  and  fme  others  of  his  vjorksj  he  wsuld  K^t 
have  obje^ed  to  this  chara^^r  if  Chrlft, 


^6  An  exa?nhtation  ofDr,  C's 

If  the  anfwer  to  the  queftion  jufl  propofed,  fliould  be^ 
that  the  annihilation  of  the  created  fyftem  would  be  an  in-^ 
finite  evil  ;  the  conreqnence  is,  that  an  infinite  evil  may- 
be caufed  or  committed  by  a  finite  creature,  in  a  finite  time. 

PciSSTBLY  it  may  be  further  objefted,  that  if  our  Lord 
Jefus  Chrifi:  be  a  mere  creature,  he  had  no  power  in  him- 
felf  to  create  the  univerfe  ;  but  created  it  by  a  divine  pow- 
er communicated  for  that  purpofe  ;  and  that  if  he  fhould 
annihilate  it,  he  mufl  do  it  by  the  fame  communicated  pow- 
er.    Therefore  Chrifl  himfelf  has  it  not   in  his  power,    to 

effc£l  an  infinite  evil. But  we  are  to  obferve,  that  if 

Chriit  was  a  proper  intelligent  moral  agent  in  creation, 
that  work  is  his  work,  and  properly  to  be  afcribed  to  him, 
as  properly  as  any  actions  of  men  are  to  be  afcribed  to 
them.  It  is  allowed  on  all  hands,  that  all  men  have  re- 
ceived all  their  powers  of  aftion  from  their  creator ;  yet 
no  man  will  difpute,  whether  thefe  actions  be  the  proper 
aclions  of  men,  or  whether  the  effeds  produced  by  thefe 
adlions  be  imputable  to  them,  as  their  proper  caufes. 
Therefore  with  at  leaft  as  great  truth  and  propriety  is 
Chrift,  even  on  the  fuppofition  that  he  is  a  mere  creature, 
the  proper  caufe  of  all  his  works,  whether  of  creation  or 
annihilation,  as  men  in  general  are  the  caufes  of  their  works. 
He  cannot  poffibly  be  more  dependent  for  his  powers,  than 
we  are  for  ours.  Nor  is  it  of  any  importance  to  the  fub- 
ject  now  under  conlideration,  whether  Chrift  had  original- 
ly the  power  of  creation  and  annihilation,  or  whether  it 
was  communicated  to  him  afterwards.  A  pov/er  given  by 
God  at  one  time,  is  as  really  given  by  him,  as  if  it  were  gi- 
ven at  another  time. 

In  the  argument  againftthe  infinite  evil  of  fin,  that  a  fi- 
nite cresture  cannot  commit  an  infinite  evil,  in  a  finite 
time  ;  the  finitude  of  tke  time  is  ei  ther  efiential  to  the  va- 
lidity of  the  argument,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  be  elTential,  ic 
implies,  as  was  before  obferved,  that  no  crime  can  deferve 
to  be  puniflied  for  a  longer  time,  than  was  confumed  in  the 
commiifion  of  the  crime.  If  the  finitude  of  the  time  be  not 
elTential  to  the  argument,  but  the  meaning  be,  that  a  finite? 
creature  cannot  at  all  com.mit  an  infinite  evil,  becaufe  he  is 
^finite  creature,  it  will  follovv^,  that  if  the  whole'  fyftem  of 
intelligent  creatures  were  to  revolt  from  God,  and  to  con- 
tinue in  their  revolt  to  an  abfolute  eternity,  it  would  be  but 
a  finite  evil. 

Objection 


Argiimenis  from  JuflicCy  97 

Objection  :  The  time  never  can  come,  at  which  the 
fyfteni  of  creatures  fhall  have  continued  to  an  abfolute  eter- 
nity, in  their  revolt  from  God.  Though  therefore  we 
fuppoie  that  the  whole  created  fyfbem  fliould  revolt,  it  is 
abiurd  to  mppcfe,  that  they  fiiali  have  continued  in  their 
revolt  to  an  abfolute  eternity  :  and  therefore  it  is  impof- 
iihle,  that  the  whole  created  fyftem  fliould  hav<?  com- 
mitted an  infinite  evil.- Ansv/er.*  For  the  fame  reafon 

it  is  impoluble,  that  a  creature  flioukl  have  been  puniihed 
to  an  abfolute  eternity.  The  longed  punilhmcnt  to  v.'hich 
any  fuppofe  the  wicked  are  doomed,  is  in  no  other  fenfe 
infinite,  than  that  in  Vv'hich  the  revolt  which  has  been  fup- 
pofed,  may  be  infinite.  If  then  the  wicked  be  not  doomed 
to  an  infinite  or  endlefs  punifhmcnt  ;  fin  is  not,  on  any 
fchcme,  puniflicd  with  an  infinite  punifliment ;  and  then 
the  whole  objection  of  punifhing  a  finite  evil,  with  an  in- 
finite puniihment,  falls  to  the  ground. 

But  this  whole  argument,  founded  on  the  finitude  of 
the  hfe  and  of.  the  capacity  ef  the  iinner,  was  virtually 
given  up  by  Dr.  C.  in  that  he  believed,  that  endlefs  an- 
nihilation would  be  a  juffc  punifiiment  of  fm  ;  though  the 
duration  of  the  puniihment  in  this  cafe,  would  infinitely 
exceed  the  time  confumed  in  the  commiiuon  of  fm. 

III.  We  come  at  length  to  confider  the  third  argument 
of  Dr.  C.  againft  the  juftice  of  endlefs  punifhment,  which 
is,  that  endleis  punilhment,  on  account  of  the  infinite 
evil  of  lin,  as  committed  againft  a  God  of  infinite  glory, 
implies,  that  future  punifhment  is  infinite  or  to  the  utmoft 
in  degree,  as  well  as  duration,  and  therefore  that  the  pu- 
nilhment of  all  the  dnmnedis  equal,  which  is  both  abfurd 
and  contrary  to  fcripture.  This  I  take  to  be  the  argu- 
ment intended  in  the  latter  part  of  the  lafb  quotation  made 
in  the  beginning  of  this  chapter. — On  this  it  is  obfervable^ 
that  though  a  fmner,  on  account  of  the  infinite  evil  of  lin 
as  ccvmmitted  againft  a  God  of  infinite  glory,  deferve  and 
fiiall  fufier  an  endlefs  punifhment ;  it  by  no  means  follows, 
that  he  deferves  or  will  fulFer  that  punilhmcnt  which  is 
infinite  in  degree  too,  or  vv-hich  is  to  the  utmoil  degree  in 
which  aoy  llnner  is  puniflied.  All  that  follows  from  the 
infinite  evil  of  fm  is,  that  it  deferves  an  infinite  punii]i». 
ment  ;  and  an  endlefs  punilhment  is  an  infinite  punilli- 
ment,  though  it  be  not  to  the  utmoil  in  degree.  I'here- 
fore^  when  Dr.    G.   lays,  *'  According  to  this  wny  of  ar- 

®  «'  ^uing, 


^8  An  ^Etcaminaiion  of  Dr.   Cs  ' 

*^  guing,  all  fmners  mnil:  fuffer  to  the  lumofc  in  (kgreCy  as 
"  vvell  as  darauon_,  otherwife,  they  will  not  iufFer  {o 
^*  much  as  they  ought  to  do  ;''  he  merely  afferts  what  he 
ought  to  have  proved.  Therefore  he  fails  in  his  attempt 
to  fallen  on  the  doctrine  cf  the  infinite  evil  of  iln^  the  ab- 
Jurdity  tliat  the  punilhnient  of  all  the  damned  will  be 
equal.  He  might  as  well  have  argtied,  that  becaufe  all 
iaints  ihall  receive  aft  infinite  or  an  endlefs  reward  ;  the 
rev/ard  of  tVQYy  one  will  be  to  the  utmcli:  in  degree,  and 
the  reward  of  all  will  be  equal. 

Or  if  the  meaninp-  of  this  arp'timent  be,  that  the  wick- 
ed  will  all  be  puniflied  equally,  not  becaufe  they  will  fuf- 
fer  an  ejidlefs  puniihment,  but  becanfe  they  all  lin-againft 
the  fame  infinitely  glorious  cbjedl:,  and  therefore  their  fins 
are  all  equal  ;  the  anfwer  is,  that  the  confequence  by  no 
means  follows  from  the  premifes.  Though  it  be  true,  that 
the  ^^'icked  all  lin  apainit:  the  fame  God,  and  on  that  ac- 
count  all  deferve  endlefs  punifhment  ?  yet  it  no  more  fol- 
lows thence,  that  they  all  deferve  the  fame  punifhment  in 
degree,  than  if  a  nimil^er  of  fubjecls  fnould  rebel  againfl 
the  fame  excellent  Prince,  it  would  follow,  that  they  are 
equally  guilty,  and  all  deferve  an  equal  puniHiment. 

The  e>:prci]ion.  infinite  tv'il  of  fm,  feems  to  be  very  of- 
fenfive  to  ibme  rentlemen.  Tliev^  {^^.m.  to  conceive  that 
it  means  as  great  an  6vil  or  crime,  as  it  is  poihble  for  a  man 
to  commit  ^  the  moral  turpitude  of  which  can  in  no  refpedt 
be  increafed. — — This  idea  of  .the  infinite  evil  of  fin  is 
very  different  from  that  wdiich  is  entertained  by  thofe  who 
hold,  that  lin  is  an  infinite  evil.  All  they  mean  is,  that 
iin  is  in  fuch  a  fenfe  an  infinite  evil,  that  it  m.ay  be  juflly 
followedby  an  endlefs  puniihment.  It  no  more  foUov/s 
hence,  that  the  moral  turpitude  of  any  particular  (in  can 
not  be  increafed,  than  that  the  endlefs  punifliment  of  it 
cannot  be  increafed  ;  or  than  that  the  endlel's  happinefs  of 
the  faints  in  heaven  cannot  be  increafed.  Indeed,  neither 
the  happinefs  of  heaven,  nor  the  niifery  cf  hell  can  be 
increafed  in  duration  :  nor  can  the  turpitude  of  fin  be  {o 
increafed,  as  to  deferve  a  greater  duration  of  puniihment, 
than,  that  which  is  endlefs.  But  as  both  the  happinei^s  of 
heaven  and  the  mifery  of  hell,  though  endlefs,  may  be  in- 
creafed in  degree  ;  fo  may  the  turpitude  of  fin  be  fo  in-* 
ereafed,  as  to  deferve  a  greater  degree  of  puniihmen.. 

Whex 


Arguments  from  Jujtica,  09 

Wkxn  it  is  faid,  that  if  the  evil  of  fin  be  iiiHnite,  it  is 
as  great  as  pofTibie,  and  fo  ail  fms  are  eqiTal ;  it  feeins  to 
be  imphed,  that  all  infinites  are  equal  in  all  rcfpecls,  than 
which  nothing  is  more  faife.  An  infinite  line,  an  infmite' 
fuperiicies,  and  an  infinite  folid,  are  all  infinites,  and  they 
are  all  equal  in  one  refpecl  or  dimeniion,  that  of  length. 
But  a  line  though  truly  infinite  in  length,  is  not  in  the  di- 
menlion  of  breadth  equal  to  an  infinite  fuperiicies.  Nor  is 
a  luperiicies,  though  iruiy  infinite  in  die  two  dimennons  of 
length  and  breadth,  equal  in  depth  to  an  infinite  folid- — 
.To  apply  this,  fin  ]nay  be  infinitely  aggravated  v/ith  re- 
fped  to  the  object;  againft  whom  it  is  conunitted,  and  in 
thatrefpet^  it  maybe  incapable  cf  an  increafe  of  aggrava- 
tion. Still  it  may  not  be  infinite  with  refpecl  to  the  de-^ 
gree  of  oppofition,  or  virulence  and  rnahgnity  to  the  object, 
againft  whom  it  is  committed. 

By  the  infinite  evil  of  fin  therefore  is  meant,  that  fin  tru- 
ly (jziQvw&s  an  cndlefs  punilhincnt,  as  it  is  committed  againfl 
an  infinitely  glorious  object,  againll  God  himfelf,  his  autho- 
rity, his  law,  his  government ;  and  as  it  enervates  the  \^ySj 
violates  the  peace  and  fafcty  of  his  kingdom,  introduces  con- 
fuuon  and  ruin,  and  would  actually  ruin  entirely  that  king- 
dom, and  the  happincfs  of  all  who  l?elong  to  it,  v/ere  not 
racafures  taken  b;/  Gcd  to  prevent  its  natural  effecft. 
In  this  refpeft  it  is  infinitsly  evil,  and  in  this  refpe^t,  in 
which  it  is  infinitely  evil,  the  evil  of  it  caiiJiotbe  increaied, 
becaufe  the  object  againfl:  which  it  is  committed,  cannot  be 
greater,  iiQore  important,  or  more  excellent ;  and  in  this 
refpect  all  fins  are  equal.  But  by  the  infinite  evil  of  lin, 
is  not  medni;  an  evil,  which  deferves  an  infi.nite  deg-ree  of 
punifliment ;  or  an  act  of  oppofition  to  God  and  his  king- 
dom, whicli  IS  infinitely  virulent  or  malicious.  In  this  re-^ 
ipect  the  evil  of  fin  maybe  increafed,  and  in  this  refpect  all 

lin's  are  by  no  means  equal. The  evil  of  any  one   fin  is 

notfo  great,  but  that  on  the  vv'hole  it  may  be  increafed,  as 
the  happinefs  of  heaven  is  not  fo  great,  but  that  on  thq 
whole  that  may  be  incr-eafed. 

Though  the  turpitude  of  fin  is  infinite  wath  refpect  to 
the  objecT:  oppofed,  yet  it  is  not  infinite  as  to  the  degree  of 
ODpofition.  If  a  fubie(51:  rebel  ag-ainft  the  moit  excellent 
fovereign  on  earth,  his  crime  is,  in  refpect  to  the  object,  as 
great  as  he  can  commit  in  rebellion  againvt  a  temporal 
pnnce  ;  becaufe  by  fuppofition  he  cannot  be  the  fubjed  of 

a 


100  yfriExamlnaiion  of  Di\  CV 

a  better  temporal  prince,  and  therefore  he  cannot  rebel  a- 
gainli  a  better.  Yet  this  rebellion  may  be  more  aggrava- 
ted by  greater  degrees  of  oppofition,  abul'e  or  infult  to  this 
fame  excellent  prince.    . 

What  has  been  now  faid  concerning  the  infinite  evil  of 
lin,  has  been  in  the  v^ay  of  explanation,    and  in   anf\v  er  ta 
Dr.  C's  objeclions.    The  pofitive  proof,  that  {\\\  is  an  infi- 
nite evil,    has    been   fo  largely    and  ably  given  by  others, 
that  the  reader  will  allow  me  to  refer  him  to  them.* 

Thus  I  have  particularly  attended  to  the  arguments 
brought  by  Dr.  C.  to  prove,    that  the  endlefs  punifijnent 

of  the  wicked  would  not  be  juft. ^.I  ihall  nov^    pi  oceed 

to  a  more  general  confideration  of  the  juflice  of  endlefs 
puniihment  confifting  in  mifery,  and  to  fome  aiguments  ni 
proof  of  it.  The  firfl  argument  to  vvhieh  I  wilh  to  direct 
the  attention  of  the  reader »  is,  that  if  endlefs  puniihment 
be  the  curfe  of  the  divine  law,  or  the  puniihment  threaten- 
ed in  the  divine  law_j  as  the  wages  of  fni;;  or  as  the  proper 
puniiliment  of  linners  ;  undoubtedly  it  is  juif.  It  is  impof- 
i^ble^  that  a  God  of  perfect  and  infinite  juftice  Ihould  threat- 
en an  unjufl  puniihment. 1  am  indeed  aware,   that  it  is 

not  a  conceded  point,  that  endlefs  mifery  is  threatened  in 
tlve  divine  lav/  :  I  therefore  purpcfe  to  attempt  the  proof 
of  it. The  curfe  of  the  divine  law  is  either  endlefs  an- 
nihilation, or  it  is  that  miicry  which  the  wicked  in  fad  fuf- 
fer  in  hell,  or  it  is  fome  temporary  miiery  of  greater  dura- 
tion than  that  which  is  aclually  fuffcred  in  hell,  or  it  is  end- 
lefs mifery.  Thefe  feveral  hypothefes fiialleome  under con- 
l^d^eration  in  the  follovving  chapters. 

But  before  I  proceed,  it  may  be  proper  to  explain  in 
what  fenfe  I  ufe  the  word  /^^xu,  in  this  inquiry  concerning 
the  curfe  of  the  divine  law. — By  the  divine  law,  I  mean 
not  merely  any  pofitive,  revealed  law,  as  th"5t  given  to 
Adam  concerning  the  tree  of  knov/ledge  of  good  and  evil : 
but  what  Dr.  C.  calls  *^  the  moral  law  of  God,''  and 
^'  the  law  of  vv'orks,  as  requiring  perfect:,  a6lual,  indefecr— 
'''  able  obedience."  TheDocior allows,  that"  he"  [Adam] 
^'  was,  without  all  doubt,  under  ilrid  indifpenfable  obli- 
^'  gat  ions  to   obey    every  command   of  God,  wherein   it 

^'   Ihould 

*  Prefident  Edivards^ s  fcrmon  on  //'i?  Eternity  of  heli-torr 
ments,  o: .'//?/ J- //-'ii.?  C7iJuftification.  Br.  Bellamy^ s  Effay 
fin  the  Gofpel,  i'c"^,  l/\  Mr,  Hapklns^  on  the  Future  State^ 
Seel.  IV. 


Argiivnenis  from  Jujlice.  '  lot 

^^  fliould  be  made  known  to  him — and  mud  have  rendered 
*'  himfelf  obnoxious  to  the  righteous  rcfenrments  of  his 
*^  God  and  king,  had  he  expreiTed  any  difregard  to  any  of 
*'  them."*  This  he  fpeaks  concerning  the  moral  law^  as 
may  be  feen  by  the  context.  Anddoubtlefs  as  Adam  was 
obhgated  to  obey  **  every  command"  of  the  moral  jaw, 
and  in  cafe  of  difobedicnce,  was  *^  obnoxious  to  the  rlgh- 
*'  teous  refentments  of  Godjl^'  the  fame  is  true  of  every 
other  man.  The  righteous  refentment  of  God  for  dif- 
obedicnce to  this  law,  is  that  very  curfe  of  the  laxu,  from 
v/hich  Chrift  hath  redeemed  his  people,  and  which  is  the 
proper  objed  of  our  prefent  incjuiry.  By  law  taken  in  this 
fenfe,  Dr.  C.  abundantly  holds,  that  no  man  can  be  juili- 
fied.  *^  By/^f,  the  apoftle  fometimes  means  law  in  ge- 
^-  neral,  both  the  lav/  written  in  men^s  hearts,  and  in  the 
*'  books  of  revelation — fometimes — the  Mofaic  law  in 
*^  fpecial.  But  whether  he  underftand  by  it  natural  or 
*'  revealed  law,  or  law  including  both  ;  v/orks  done  in 
''  conformity  to  it,  when  mentioned  with  reference  to 
^'  juftification,  he  always  fets  afide  as  totally  infufficient 
'^  for  the  procurement  of  it."f  Here  the  Doctor  tells  us  in 
what  fenfe  be  ufes  the  word  laiv^  which  is  the  fame  in 
which  I  ufe  it,  in  the  prefent  inquiry  ;  and  as  he  afferts 
in  this  context,  and  in  very  many  other  paiTages,  that  no 
man, '*  Jew  or  Gentile,"  can  be  juftified  on  the  foot  of  law 
taken  in  the  fenfe  juft  explained  ;  of  courfe  all  men  are 
condemned  by  the  lav/,  and  the  punilliment  to  which  the 
law  condemns  all,  is  the  curfe  of  the  law  ;.  or  the  curfe  of 
the  law  is 'that  punifhment  to  which  the  moral  law  con- 
demns every  man  who  tranfgreifes  it. 

CHAP. 

*  .5  DiiT.  p.  5^.  ^12  Sermoft^  p.  4. 


t02  ~  Annihilation  not  ihr 

C    H    A     P.      V. 

Is  j4nnlhllation  the   Punifnment  of  the  c\amned\ 

"I'^OCTOR  C's  firfl  objecl  was,   to   prove    that  all  men 
3^  will   bs    finally   happy.  — If  he  f] 


appy.  — If  he   fhould     fail    in 

this,  his  lail:  refort  was  annihilation.  '■^  If  the  foreoroino: 
*^  Icheme,"  fays  he,*  * '  ihould  be  found  to  have  no  truth 
*^  in  it,  and  the  wicked  are  fent  to  hell,  as  fo  niany  In- 
*'  cur  able  s,  the  fecond  death  ought  to  be  coniidered,  as 
''  that  which  will  put  an  end  to  their  exigence,  both  in 
*^  foul  and  body,  fo  as  that  they  Ihall  be  no  more  in  the 
*"-  creation  of  Gcd."  Kaving  made  the  fuppofition,  that 
the  next  is  the  final  {late  of  men,  he  fays,f  **  It  is  mofb 
''  peremptorily  affirmed,  that  they''  (the  wicked)  >^  fhall 
^*  ?^eap  corri'ptlcn,  perlflo,  be  dejiroyed^  and  die  a  fecond 
^'  time  ;  which  fixes  the  fenfc  of  the  word  everlafi'ing, 
^*  w'hen  joined  v/ith  the  mlfery  they  fliall  be  doomed  to 
"^  undergo,  limiting  its  meaning  to  an  age,  or  period 
'^  of  duration  only."  Corruption,  perdition,  deftruiflion, 
and  the  fecond  death  do  notlin)it  the  meaning  of  the  v.crd 
everlafting,  unlefs  it  be  oii  the  fuppofition,  that  thofe 
words  themielves  mean  annihilation.  LoiieiimeG  by  thofe 
words  Dr.  C.  feems  to  have  meant  a  tranfition  from  one 
future  ftate  of  exiHence  to  another  ;  at  other  times  he 
expreiHy  declares  that  they  mean  rnlfcry ^'-torment.  Now 
if  thofe  Vv'ords  applied  to  the  wicked  mean  a  tranfition  from 
the  next  ftate  of  exigence  to  another,  they  by  no  means 
certainly  limit  their  mifery.  This  traniition  may  be  from 
one  ftate  of  mifery  to  another  ftate  of  mifery  ;  as  Dr.  C. 
fuppofed  that  they  might  pafs  through  feveral  future  ftates 
of  mifery,  before  they  fliould  arrive  at  happinefs.  Kay, 
from  the  words  ufed  in  this  fenfe,  no  inierence  can  be 
drawn,  that  they  will  ever  arrive  at  a  ftate  of  happinefs  : 
bccaul'e  a  tranfition  from  one  ftate  pf  m.ifery  to  another 
ftate  of  mifery,  is  as  truly  a  trsnfition,  as  a  traniition  from 

a  ftate  of  mifery  to  a  ftate   of  happhiefs. But  if  thofe 

v/ords  mean  rntjery  or  torment ^  they  certainly  do  not  liiijit 
'the  future  mifery  of  the  wicked  ;  as  will  m»ore  fully  ap- 
pear pi*efently. 

I  DO 
*   P.   282.     t  P-  2S3.,  ■ 


Vi 


Pioujhment  of  the  damned.  xo? 

1  DO  not  find  any  proof  offered  by  Dr.  C.  that  the 
wicked  will  be  annihilated,  unlefs  he  confider  the  very 
meaning  of  the  words  definition y  deaths  k.Q,  as  a  proofs 
But  this  proofs  if  it  be  one,  was  abfolutely  given  up  by 
himfeU",  as  he  held,  that  thofe  words  fignify  not  annihila- 
tion, but  mifcry  ;  as  in  the  following  palTages  ;  '^  Ever^ 
^'  lafling  punifhmsnt,  cverlafling  fire,  ever  lofting  defiruc- 
*'  tion  :  i'o  the  words  are  rendered  in  our  Engli/h  bibles  ; 
*^  but  we  are  very  obvionfly  led  to  underftand  by  them 
^'  MISERY,  that  muil:  be  fufFered  for  a  certain  period.''* 
If  men  continue  the  fervants  of  iin,  the  wages  they 
iliall  receive  before  the  gift  through  Chrilfc  is  conferred 
o\\  them,  will  be  t\\Qfecond  death  :  whereas  if  they  be- 
come the  fervants  of  God,  this  gift  through  Chriit  will 
'*  iffue  in  their  eternal  hfe,  without  their  paffing  through 
*•  the  fecond  death.'"  f  That  by  the  fecond  death  he  here 
meant  not  annihilation,  but  the  mifery  of  hell,  is  manifefc 
as  it  is  to  be  follov/ed  with  the  gift  of  God  through  Chrift 
which  is  eternal  life.  ^^  The  going  away  into  everlaftinp- 
*'  punifnment,  the  being  call:  into  the  furnace  of  fire^ 
"  v\^here  there  fliall  be  wailing  and  gnafhing  of  teeth, 
mean  the  fame  thing  in  the  facred  dialed,  with  the  fe^ 
cond  death. ^^X  *^They  may  be  faved  without  firft  going 
through  the  torynents  of  hell,  or  as  thefcripture  expreiTes 
it,  v/ithout  being  hurt  of  the  fecond  death. ^^\\  How 
llrange  then  is  it,  that  Dr.  C.  fhould  urge  the  Hteral  and 
original  meaning  of  the  words  death ,  defirueiim,  Sec.  as 
an  argument  for  annihilation,  when  he  himfeif  fuppofed 
that  they  mean  not  annihilation,  but  obviouflymean??2//?ry  / 
and  that  he  iliould  fuppofe,  that  they  limit  the  fenfe  of 
the  word  everlaffingj  when  it  is  joined  to  the  mifery  of  the 
damned'!  As  well  might  he  have  faid,  that  the  word  mi- 
fery limits  the  {exiiQ  ot  the  A/ord  everlailing,  v/hen  it- is 
joined  to  the  mifery  of  the  damned  ! 

Perhaps  fome  admirers  of  Dr.  C.  may  attempt  to  re- 
concile this  inconfiflence,  hy  faying,  be  held  that  the  words 
death y  defji'ucIiQn,  Sec.  mean  and  prove  annihilation,  ©n 
the  fole  fuppofition,   that   the  next  fbte  is  final  :   that  on 

any  other  fuppofition  he    held    that  they  mean  mifery. 

But  this  would  be  a  vain  nttempt.  For  if  thofe  words  do 
or  may  mean  mifery,  they  are  no  proof  of  annihilation, 
whether  the  next  flaie  be  iinai  or  not.     They  are  no  more 

a  proof 
*"  Page  22d.   t  Page  go.     t  P^ge  2ic.      ^  P-ge  337. 


J04  Anmhilation  not  the 

a  proof  of  it,  than  the  words  m'tfery  and  tcnnent ;  be-« 
caufe  by  his  own  concefllons,  they  are  at  leait  capable  of 
ineaninp-  mifery  or  torment.  Therefore  though,  Dr.  C's 
icheme  of  univerfal  happinefs  ihould  fail,  we  ihould  from 
the  application  of  the  words  death ^  deflrudhn^  Szc.  to 
the  v/itked,  be  under  no  necellity  of  fuppofmg  that  they 
will  be  annihilated  ;  everlafting  deftrudion  may  mean  ever- 
lafting  mifcry. 

The  truth  appears  to  be,  that  Dr.  G.  was  led  to  adopt, 
-as  the  lail  refort,  the  idea  of  the  annihilation  of  the 
wicked,  not  by  tlie  obvious  meaning  and  ufe  of  the  words 
.^katf}  and  dejlm^ion  in  fcripture  ;  fnice  he  allows  they  ob- 
yioufly  mean  milery  or  torment ;  but  by  the  preconcep- 
tion, that  it  is  a  certa'n  truth,  that  the  endlefs  mifery  of 
any  of  mankind  can  never  exifl.  To  this  preconceived 
opinion  the  fcripture  mufi:  fome  way  or  other  be  accom- 
modated. 

But  let  us  proceed  to  fome  confiderations  to  confirm  the 
propolition,  that  annihilation  is  not  the  curfe  or  puniili- 
anent  denounced  againfl  iin  in  the  divine  lavv^ 

The  doctrine,  that  annihilation  is  the  curfe  of  the  di-" 
"'nne  law,  may  be  holden  in  two  different  fenfes,  both 
which  ?  conceive  to  be  entirely  oppofite  to  the  truth. — 
It  is  the  fentiment  of  many,  that  annihilation  is  the  punilh- 
merit  of  fm  threatened  in  the  law,  and  is  actually  infiicled 
on  thofe  who  die  impenitent. — Again  ;  it  is  the  fentiment 
of  fome,  that  though  annihilation  v/ill  not  be  inflicled  on 
any  ;  yet  it  is  the  curfe  which  was  originally  in  the  law  de- 
nounced againft  fm  ;  but  that  Chrill:  hath  abfolutely  re- 
deemed all  from  it  ;   and  therefore  none  will  liiffer  it. 

I.  It  is  the  fentiment  of  many,  and  was  the  fentiment 
of  Dr.  C.  provided  his  fcheme  of  univ'erfal  happinefs  do 
not  hold  ;  that  annihilation  is  the  punlfhment  threatened 
in  the  law,  and  is  aclually  inflicted  on  thofe  who  die  im.- 
penitent. — Concerning  which  it  is  to  be  remarked  ; 

I.  That  on  this  hypotheiis,  all  Dr.  C's  arguments  both 
from  fcripture  and  reafon,  to  prove  the  falvation  of  all 
men,  entirely  fall  to  the  ground  ;  and  it  is  nothing  incon- 
llftent  with  either  the  jultice  or  goodnefs  of  God,  that  a 
great  part  of  mankind  fliould  be  forever  call  off,  and  .fuf- 
fcr  an  endlefs  puniflnnent ;  and  not  only  a  great  part,  but 
the  greater  part  of  .the  whole  ;   as  he  atknovv  ledges,  that 

but 


Puntjhment  of  the  damned »  lo^j 

1 

but  few  are  faved  immediately  from  this  life.*  Nor  is  it 
at  all  inconfiftent  with  the  dsiign  of  Chrift's  undertakingi 
nor  with  his  honour  as  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  that  the 
greater  part  of  the  whole  race  fhould  not  be  faved.f  All 
that  arp-ument  therefore  of  Dr.  C.  with  his  declamatioit 
on  the  Ibppofed  abiurdity,  that  Chrift  fhould  undertake 
to  defeat  the  devil  and  defbroy  his  works,  and  yet  really 
be  fo  far  baffled  by  him,±  as  Itili  to  fail  of  the  falvaticn  of 
the  greater  part  of  mankind,  comes  entirely  to  nothing.-— 
Nor  mult  it  be  any  more  urged  as  an  argument  in  this  dis- 
pute, that  God  is  v/iliing  that  all  men  (heuld  te  faved,  and 
not  willing  that  any  IJiould  perifli  ;  or  that  Chrift  died  for 
all  men,  8zc.  Sic.  At  leafl  thcfe  propofiuons  mull  be  re- 
ceived with  the  fame  limitations  and  diflinctions,  with 
which  the  deipifed  orthodox,  fyftematic  divines  have  re- 
ceived them.  At  the  fame  time,  all  thofe  texts  which 
fpeak  of  the  reftitution  of  ell  things  ;  cf  God's  tender 
mercies  over  all  his  works  ;  of  the  free  gift  coming  upon 
all  men  to  juftiflcation  of  life  ;  of  the  creature  delivered 
from  the  bondage  cf  corruption,  into  the  glorious  liberty 
of  the  children  of  God  ;  of  the  deftruciiion  of  the  lafl  ene- 
my, death  ;  of  all  things  gathered  together  in  Chrifl ;  of 
all  things  reconciled  to  ijoA  by  Chrift  ;  of  every  creature 
faying,  blelTmg  and  honour,  ore,  to  him  thai  fitteth  on  the 
throne  and  to  the  Lamb,  &:c,  &c,  mud  be  given  up,  or 
underilood  with  the  like  limitations,  as  are  put  upon  them, 
by  the  believers  in  endiefs  milery. — At  the  fame  time,  all 
Dr.  C's  laboured  criticifm  on  ^/'^v,  a/^vncj  and  ?/?  '7oic 
«iavoz/;  Tct'v  a,«r6v^  &c,  muft  be  acknowledged  to  be  ground- 
lefs  :  and  all  that  he  hath  laid  apainfl  vindiclive  punilh- 
ment,  and  in  favour  of  mere  difcipline,  is  nothino-  to  the 
purpole. 

II.  The  fcriptural  reprefentations  of  the  punifbment 
of  the  wicked  are  inconfillent  v/i'ch  the  idea  that  it  confifts 
in  annihilation.  According  to  the  fcriptures  the  wicked 
depart  into  everlaftingj?r£'. — The  fmoke  of  their  torment 
afcendeth    up   forever  and   ever. — They  fnall  iveef  and 

P  u'^/7 

*   Pap-e  8,   and  722. 

f  The  reader  ivlll  taka  notice,  that  thfe  oh/ervations  are 
■made  on  the  fole  ground  of  Dr.  Cs  conceffhn^  that  bid  few  q/ 
rnanklnd  are  to  be  faved  immediately  fr  am  this  life,  and  do  not 
imply,  that  this  is  the  real  truth. 

t    See  p.  322,   323. 


lo6  Annihilation  not  the 

%uall  and  gnaJJj  their  teeth. — They  have    no  reft  day   nor 
night. — The  rich  man  in  hell  lifted  up  his    eyes,  being  in 
ior-ment. — The  damned  fhall  Avellwith  ever  lalting burnings. 
—When  the  mailer  of  the  houfe  fliall  have  rifen  n^J    and 
iiiut  the  door,  they  ihall  ifand  without,  crying  Lord,  Lord, 
open  to  us  :   to  whom  the  mailer  fliall  fay,   I  know  you  not, 
depart  from  me.— After  they  tlicmfclves  fhall    have   been 
tiumfc  out,   they  fhall  fee  Abraham,    Ifaac  and  Jacob,  and 
all  the  prophets  in  the  kingdom  cf  God.— -The  rich    man 
in  hell  faw  Abraham  afar  otFand  Lazarus  in  his  bofom. — 
The  faved  fhall  go  forth  and  look  on   the  carcafes  of  tranf- 
grefTors,   and    they  fhall  be  an  abhorring  to  all  flefh. — The 
beaft  and  falfe  prophet,   and  by  parity  of  reafon,   a]l  men 
dying  in  wickednefs,  fliall  be  caft  ii'ito  a  lake  of  /ire  and 
fliail  be  tormented  forever  and  ever;   Brti-Jty^TSna-ov';*;  in  the 
plural   number,    determining,     that  they,  the    devil,   the 
b«alt  and  the  falfe  prophet,  lliall  be  torfnentiid  for  ever  and 
ever. — The  wicked  Hinll  be  tormented  with  fire  and  brirn- 
flone,   in  the  prtfencs  of  the  angels,   and  in  the  -prefence  of 
the  lamb. 

But  how  can  thofe  who  are  annihilated,  be  faid  to  be 
caft  into  fire,  into  a  lake  of  f.r  e  and  hfimfirriCj  and  to  be 
tormented  ihsre  ;  to  have  no  reft  ;  to  lueep,  and  vjf.il  and 
gnajk  their  teeth ;  to  ckuell  with  everlafting  burnings r' — - 
As  well  might  thefe  things  be  faid  of  them  before  they 
were  created. — Hov/  can  they  be  faid  to  plead  for  admilhon 
into  heaven,  and  to  reafun  on  the  fubjed;  with  the  mafter  of 
the  celeftial  mannons  ?  Kow  can  they  fee  Abraham, 
Ifaac  and  Jacob  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  How  can  they 
feeing  Abraham  and  Lazai-us   in   that   ftate,  e?itcr  into  dif- 

cou?-fe  with  the  former? Rev.  XIV.    ii.   The   fmoke 

of  their  torment  afcendeth  up  forever  and  ever,  and  they 
have  7to  refl  day  nor  night.  But  thofe  who  are  annihilated, 
fo  far  as  they  have  any  thing,  have  continual  reft  day  and 
night. 

The  different  degrees  of  the  punifliment  of  the  wicked 
in  hell  prove,  that  their  punifument  does  not  conilft  in  an- 
nihilation. Matt.  V.  22,  '^  Whofoever  Ihall  be  angry 
*^  with  his  brother  without  a  caufe,  fnall  be  in  danger  of 
^'  the  judgment  :  whofoever  fhall  fay  to  his  brother,  racu, 
'^  fnall  be  in  danger  of  the  council:  but  whofoever  fnall 
'^  fay,  thou  fool,  fhall  be  in  danger  of  heli^-iire." — The 

fervant 


PumJImient  of  the  damn;;cL  107 

fervant  who  knows  not  his  mafter's  will,  and  commit^ 
thinp;s  worthy  of  ftripes,  ilmll  be  beaten  with/f"Li;  ftripes, 
but  tile  lervant  who  knows  his  mailer's  will,  and  com- 
mits things  worthy  of  ftripes,  fliall  be  beaten  with  rnaiiy 
ftripes. — It  fnall  be  more  tolerable  for  Tyre  and  Sidon  and 
for  Sodom,  than  for  Chorazin^  Bethfaida  and  Capernaum. 
— The  wicked  ihall  receive  accordino;  to  their  works,  ac- 
cording  to  the  fruit  of  their  doings,  and  according  to  that 
which  they  fliall  have  done  in  the  body.  The  fcribes  and 
Pharifees  were  to  receive   the   greater  damnation,   Matt. 

XXIII.    14. But  if  annihilation  be  the  puniihment  of 

the  wicked,  there  is  no  difference  between  the  puniihment 
of  the  lead  (inner  and  the  greatef!:,  who  die  impenitent  : 
Avhich  is  both  abfurd  in  itfelf  and  abfolutely  contradictory 
to  the  fcriptural  account. 

If  it  fliould  be  pleaded  in  anfwer  to  this  arp-unient,  that 
though  all  the  wicked  fnall  fuffer  annihilation  ;  yet  the 
puniflnnent  of  all  will  not  be  tjie  fame ;  as  the  more  ag- 
gravated flnners  will  be  made  the  fubjeds  of  mifery  for  a 
while,  and  then  be  annihilated  :  it  may  be  replied^  that 
this  fupoofes  the  curfe  of  the  law  to  confift  in  two  thinp-s, 
temporary  mifery  and  annihilation.  But  where  have  we 
any  hint  in  the  fcripture,  that  the  curfe  of  the  lav/,  as  fuf- 
fered  in  the  future  world,  is  fuch  a  heteroreneous  com- 
pound  as  this.'^ — After  all,  it  feem.s,  that  annihilation  is  but 
a  fmail  part  of  that  curfe  ;  for  that  alone  will  be  infiidled  on 
the  leaft  (inner  only^  and  on  account  of  the  lead:  fni;  and 
all  that  puniiliment  which  ihall  be  infiicled  on  any  perfon, 
above  that  v/hichisdue  to  the  leaft  (in;  is  to  confift  in  torment. 
Why  then  might  not  the  conftitutionhave  been,  that  the  fmall 
additional  part  of  the  curfe,  which  is  to  con(ift  in  annihila- 
tion, fuould  likevvdfe  be  infiicled  in  torment  ?  This  was  very 
fealible.  He  who  fuffers  the  puniHiment  of  ninety  nine  fins 
in  torment,  might  by  a  fmall  addition,  in  degree  or  dura- 
tion to  his  tormentp  have  fuffered  the  puniihment  of  an 
hundred  fms.  Add  to  the  torment  of  every  finner  dying 
impenitent,  a  degree  or  duration  of  mifery,  equal  to  that 
which  is  deferved  by  one  Cmy  and  that  the  leaft,  and  there 
v/ould  have  been  no  need  that  anv  of  them  be  annihilated, 
but  having  fuftered  the  whole  curfe  of  the  law,  they  would 
on  the  foot  of  ftrict  juftice  be  entitled  to  exemption  from 
furtlier  punlilimcnt.     And  v/ho  having  by  mifery  fatisfied 

for 


ioS  j^nmhilatton  not  thtr 

for  all  the  various  and  moft  aggravated  fins  of  his  life,  would 
not  choofe  to  fatisfy,  in  the  fame  way,  for  the  leaft  of  all 
his  fms,  rather  than  to  be  {truck  out  of  exigence,  and  to  loic 
inconceivable  and  endlefs  enjoyment  ?  As  therefore  this 
Tuppofed  conftitution  would  be  fo  ap|)arcntly  iinnecelTary 
^nd  unwife,  it  carmot  be  expected  to  obtain  credit,  unlefs  it 
ibe  moft  clearly  revealed  in  fcripture,  which  is  not  pretend- 
ed concerning  it. — Befides,  this  hypothelis  places  fo  fmall 
a  part  of  the  punifliment  of  ('nners  in  annihilation,  that  it 
cannot  with  any  propriety  be  faid,  that  the  curfe  of  the  law 
confifts  in  annihilation. 

Should  it  be  further  objected,  that  though  all  the  wick- 
ed be  annihilated,  yet  their  punilhment  may  be  of  different 
degrees,  as  the  lofles  they  fliall  refpedively  fuffer,  will  be 
different  according  to  their  various  degrees  of  enjoyment 
or  capacities  for  enjoyment  :  it  may  be  anfv.'ered,  that  the 
wicked  are  to  be  punifhed  according  to  their  feveral  crimes. 
A  man  guilty  of  murder,  will,  if  his  other  crimes  be  the 
fame,  be  puniihed  more  than  the  thief,  who  ftsals  the  va- 
lue of  five  ihillings.  Yet  the  enjoyment  of  the  latter  and 
his  capacity  for  enjoyment,  may  be  far  greater  than  thofe 
of  the  former.     By  annihilation  therefore  he  would  fuffer 

a  far  greater  lofs.-: Not  all  thofe  who  Icnow  their  raaf- 

ter's  will,  and  yet  commit  things  worthy  of  ftripes,  pofTefs 
greater  enjoyments  or"capacities  for  enjoyment,  than  thofe 
who  know  not  their  maPter's  will. 

3.  The  punilhment  of  the  fallen  angel r>  does  not  confift 
in  annihilation  :   and  the  damned  fuffer   the    fame  kind  of 
puniihment  with  them.      That  the  fallen  angels  are  as  yet 
annihilated,  I  prefume,    will  be  pretended  by   no  believer 
in  divine  revelation,    and  that  they  are  not  to  be  annihila- 
ted, will  be  evident,  if  we  connder,    that  in  expectation  of 
that  full  punilhment,  to  which  they  nre    liable,   they   afked 
our  Lord,  whether  he  were  come  to  tonnt^nt    them  before 
the  time.      It  was  fofjnn^t  then y    not    annihilation,    which 
they  expected.     The  prefent  itate  of  the  fallen  angels  is  a 
Itate  of  torment  to  a  certain  degree.     They  ^^  believe  and 
frembls  i'   '^They  are  referved  in  chains  under    darknefs, 
to  the  judgment  of  the  great  day,''  J^^de,  6  :     '^  They    arc 
caft  down  to  hell,''  1  Peter,  II,  4  :   ^'  The  devil  that  de- 
ceived them,  was  caft  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimftonc, 
where  the  beaft  and  the  falfe  prophet  are,  and  [they]  Ih^ll 
be  tGrmentcd  (^'xy  and  night,  forever  and  ever,"  Rev.  XX, 
10.     This  text  prcvjs/  (i,)  Th^-.t 


P umjh me nt  of  the  damned »  109 

(i)  That  die  de\'il  is  nov,  before  the  general  judpjment. 
In  a  ftate  of  torment,  in  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimitone.* 
A.nd  it  appears  from  the  queflion,  which  he  put  to  our 
Lord,  to  which  reference  was  juft  now  had,  that  he  anxi- 
oLiIly  dreads  the  removal,  wliich  he  is  to  fuiier,  from  this 
his  prefent  ilate,  to  that  in  which  he  is  to  be  after  the  g-e- 
neral  judgment,  and  to  which  he  and  his  angels,  arc  re- 
lerved  in  chains.  But  can  we  fuppofe,  that  iie  would  anxi- 
oufiy  dread  a  deliverance  by  annihilation,  out  of  the  lake  of 
torment  by  fire  and  brimilone?  This  would  imply,  that 
endlefs  annihilation  is  more  to  be  dreaded,  than  the  endiefs 
torment  which  is  the  fubjeft  of  this  controveriy.  If  fo. 
Dr.  C.  ought  to  have  dropped  all  objections  to  the  juftice 
of  endlefs  torments,  {nice  he  allov/ed  that  the  annihilation 
of  the  v.'icked  would  be  jufl.  And  if  that  be  juil,  th'^n  al- 
fo  endlefs  continuance  in  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimflone, 
which  is  the  utmofc  puniOiment  that  any  m^in  holds  concer- 
ning the  wicked,  and  which  is  now  fuppofed  to  be  a  lefs 
piiniHiment  than  annihilation^is  juPi. But  if  it  be  grant- 
ed, tiiat  annihilation  is  not  fo  great  a  puniihment  as  end- 
lefs continuance  in  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimlcone  ;  it  is  as 
abfurd  to  fuppofe,  tliat  the  devils  fliould  dread  or  tremble 
at  the  profped  of  annihilation,  as  that  a  man  tormented 
with  the  gout  or  flone,  fliould  dread  or  tremble  at  an  af- 
furance,  that  he  fhould  ere  long  be  delivered  from  his  tor- 
tures, and  in  their  fl:ead  fliould  fuiier  tlie  prick  of  a  pin. 

(2)  That  text  direclly  proves,  that  the  devil  is  tobe/or- 
ever  tormented,  and  not  annihilated.  *•  And  they,^  [the 
nominative  to  be  fupphed]  **  ihall  be  tormented  forever 
and  ever." — To  fay  tliat  this  means,  that  the  devil  will  be 
firll  tormented  for  ae;es  of  ag-es,  and  then  be  annihilated, 
leads  into  the  abfurdities  before  noticed. 

But  to  this  flate  of  torment,  in  which  the  fallen  angels 
are,  and  are  to  be,  the  wicked  fhall  be  lent.  ^^  Depart  ye 
curfed  into  everlafling  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his 
angels."  ''The  devil  that  deceived  them,  v/as  cait  into  the 
lake  of  fire  and  brimftone,  •where  the  bead  and  the  falfe 
prophet  are."  And  as  the  devil  is  not  to  be  annihilated, 
butpuniflied  wdth  torments,  foare  the  wicked. 

4.  Rom. 

*  The  fceiis  of  luhich  this  text  displays  a  part,  h  ma^ 
ntfrjily  an  exhibition  of  ivhct  Is  to  take  place  before  the  geKe^ 
ral  ju.lgm^nt^     This   is  evident  from  the  context. 


1 10  Annihilation  mi  the 

4.  Rom.  IX,  22,  'affords  an  argument  pertinent  to  the 
prefent  fubject.  The  words  are,  ^'  What  if  God  wilHno- 
to  Ihew  his  wrath,  and  to  make  his  power  known,  endured 
with  much  long  fufFering,  the  velTels  of  wrath  fitted  to  de- 
flruclion.''  One  end  it  leems  of  permitting  fmners  to  pro- 
ceed to  fuch  lengths  in  fni,  is  to  make  known  the  divine 
power  in  their  deftru6lion.     But  annihilation  is  no  exertion 

of  power,  it  is  a  mere  fufpenfion  of  power. The  words 

imply  further,  that  the  longer  God  endures  with  the  wick- 
ed, the  greater  Vv-ill  be  the  manifeflation  of  both  his  wrath 
201  d  power  in  their  deftruclion.  But  as  annihilation  is  the 
fame  to  every  perfon  annihilated,  it  exhibits  no  greater 
manifeftation  of  power  towards  one  than  towards  another. 
And  if  it  were  a  manifejftation  of  pov/er,  there  would  be 
no  greater  manifeftation  of  power  in  the  annihilation  of 
one,  than  of  another.  It  is  prefumed,  that  no  unbiafTed 
judge  will  fay,  that  the  meaning  is,  that  God  endures,  "jjlth 
77iuch  hng'fiifferlng  the  vefTels  of  wrath,  to  dilplay  his 
wrath  and  power  In  their  annihilation  ;  as  the  very  fame 
difplay  of  both  would  be  made,    without  any   iong-fuffer— 

The  only  confideration  urged  from  fcripture  in  fupportof 
the  fentiment,  which  I  am  oppofing,  is  the  application  of 
the  words,  death,  d^Jlrunion^perifh,  ccrrifption^  &c.  to  the 
punifliment  of  the  v/icked. — This  hov/ever  came  with  a 
very  ill  grace  from  Dr.  C.  who  underftood,'-.ahd  was  ne- 
cefhtated  by  his  icheme  of  univ^erfal  falvatlon,to  underfland, 
thofe  words  to  mean  mifcry,  as  I  have  already  ihown. — 
With  regard  to  others,  who  make  not  this  conceffion,  let 
them,  if  they  believe  in  revelation,  (and  with  fuch  only  I 
difpute)  reconcile  the  fcrlptures  with  themfelves,  and  un- 
derftand  fuch  like  palTages  as  thofe  I  have  quoted  above, 
reprefenti:?g  the  punifliment  of  the  damned,  to  confift  in 
mifcry,  in  any  confiilence  with  the  threatening  of  death, 
dejirucUon,  Szc,  otherwife  than  by  allov.ing  that  thofe 
words  do  mean  poiitive  mifery.  But  to  allow  this,  is  to 
give  up  the  fchcme  of  annihilation  ;  or  at  leafl  this  argu- 
ment for  it. 

Besides,  the  fcriptures  themfelves  explain  their  own 
meaning  in  the  ufe  of  the  vrcrds  death,  defiruSllon,  8<:c. 
The  fecond  death  is  exprefsly  faid  to  confift  in  being  caft 
into  the  lake  of  nvc  and  brii^llone,  and  in  having;  a  part  in 
that  lake  ;  Vvfiich  ie  not  a  defcription  of  annihiiation;    nor 

can 


Puni/hnifnt  of  ths  damned.  tt  i 

can  be  reconciled  with  it.     Rev.  XX,  14.  Ch.  XXI,  8.— « 

Mat.  XXIV,  51,  ^^  And  fliall  cut  him  afunder,  and  appoint 
him  his  portion  with  hypocrites,  there  fliall  be  wailing  and 
gnafhing  of  teeth."  To  divide  a  man  into  two  parts,  as 
deterniinately  expreiTes  annihilation,  as  the  words  death^ 
pe?-dUion,  &€.  This  however  the  fcripture  fuppofes  to  be 
coniifcent  with  a  ftate  of  mifery,  expreffed  by  wailing  and 
p-nafiiinp*  of  teeth  Gen.  V,  2d.  *'  Enoch  Vv'alkcd  with 
God,. and  ix^as  not,  for  God  took  him."  In  this  inftance, 
though  the  fcripture  fays,  Enoch  ivas  noty  which  more  di- 
rectly cxprelTes  snnihilation,  than  death,  deflruftionf  &c, 
yet  it  explains  itfelf  to  mean  not  annihilation  ;  indeed  no 
man  pretends  that  the  righteous  are  annihilated. —When 
the  fcriptures  fay,  that  men  are  dead  in  trefpafl'es  and  fms, 
no  man  underftands  the  expreilion  to  mean  annihilation. 
The  fame  nuay  be  faid  of  the  apoflle's  words  in  i  Tim.  V,  6. 
^^She  that  iiveth  in  pleafure  is  dead  while  flie  liveth." 

Thehefore,  (nice  the  fcriptures  do  often  ufe  the  v/ord 
death f  &c.  to  iignify  fomething  entirely  dilferent  from  a  ccl- 
fation  of  life  01*  of  e^rifrence  ;  and  fince  we  cannot  make 
the  fcripti^res  connfcent  with  themfelves,  unlefs  \ve  under- 
iland  the  fame  words  in  the  faiile  latitude,  when  applied 
to  the  puniihment  of  the  wicked,  we  are  necelhtated  to  un- 
derftand  them  in  that  latitude. 

II.  As  I  obferved,  there  is  another  fenfe  in  which  an- 
nihilation may  be  holden,  and  was  holden  by  Dr.  C. 
which  is  this  ;  that  though  annihilation  will  not  actually 
be  inflicted  on  any  man,  yet  it  is  the  curfe  which  was  ori- 
ginally in  the  divine  law  denounced  againfl  lin ;  but  that 
Chrifl:  hath  abfolutely  redeemed  all  men  from  that  curfe, 
fo  that  no  man  is  now  liable  to  it.  ^'  By  Chrifi — they 
\\ ere  abfolutely  and  tinconditionly  ^wtmto  {■Ji\Y2ih\e,  cir- 
cumflances — Upon  this  foundation  and  this  only,  they 
are  become  r<8!j^^^/c?  of  a  future  immortality  .^^"^  ^^  God 
might  upon  the  lirft  oiTence  he"  [Adam] '^  committed, 
have  immediately  turnedhim  outofexlftejicd,  as  he  threat- 
^^  ened  he  would ;  the  effect  whereof  would  have  been  the 
*^  total  lofs  of  dl  his  principles  bodily  and  mental,  and  of  all 
^*  his  obligations. "f  '^  The  fame  grace  through  Chrifr, 
"■'  which  continued  Adam  in  heln^  after  the  lapfe,"  Sec,  t 
^^  It  will  further  enhance  cur  idea  of  the  greatnefs  of 
''  God's    grace"    [through    ChriTt]     *^   in  reltoring  that 

^^  poffibllity 
*  P.  132.     f  5DI1T.  p.  198.      ±   Ibid.  p.  243. 


rfI2  \AnmhihtiQH  mt  ths 

*^  pOjJihlUty  of  exiftence  which  had  been  forfeltedhy  Adam's 

*'  lapfe/^  dec. Ij     **  Death would  have  put  a  period  to 

*'  all  poiTi'oility  of  perception  or  exertion  in  any  ihape  for- 
''  ever,  had  it  not  been  for  the  interpolltion  of  grace  through 
**■  Chriil."**  *^  1  he  term  death  when  ufed  v/ith  refer- 
'*'  ence  to  the  pofterity  of  Adam,  confidered  fimply  as 
*'  fuch,  cannot  contain  more  in  its  meaning,  than  is  in- 
*^  eluded  in  it,  v/hen  ufed  with  reference  to  Adam  him- 
''  felf.ft 

On  this  hypothecs,  the  punishment  actually  fuffered  by 
the  damned  is  no  part  of  the  curie  of  the  divine  law,  but 
merely  a  necefliiry  and  wholefome  dilcipline  deiicrned  for 
the  good  of  the  patients.  But  this  fcheme  of  annihilation 
can,  no  more  than  the  former,  be  reconciled  with  the 
icripture,  which  fays  the  wncked  iliall  receive  according  to 
their  works,  fhail  pay  the  uttermoft  farthing,  {hall  have 
judgment  vvdthcut  miercy,  wrath  w^ithout  mixture,  &c. 
Nor  indeed  can  it  be  reconciled  with  Dr.  C's  book,  which 
fays.  The  v.icked  will  be  puniiflied  according  to  their  de- 
ferts,  accordinp-  to  their  (ins,  according  to  the  nature  and 
number  of  their  crimes  and  evil  deeds  ;  and  fo  that  the 
law  v/ill  have  its  conrfe,  and  the  threatened  penalty  will 
be  executed  on  fome  of  them  at  leafl.  Thefe  excreflions 
certainly  declare,  that  they  v/ill  fuller  the  full  curfe  of  the 
divine  law.  Otherwife  the  curfe  of  the  law  is  a  greater 
puniHiment  than  that  which  is  accord  ng  to  the  deferts  of 
the  wicked,  and  greater  too  than  the  full  penalty  threat- 
ened in  the  law  ;   which  is  abfurd  and  contradictory. 

He  FIE  I  might  repeat  the  various  arguments  urged  in 
the  third  chapter,  to  prove  that  the  punilliment  of  the 
damned  is  not  a  merefalutary  difcipline.  But  to  avoid  re- 
petition, I  beg  leave  to  refer  the  reader  to  the  coniidera- 
tions  there  fuggefted  :  and  to  proceed  to  other  coniidera- 
tions,  which  may  further  fhov/,  that  the  future  punifli- 
ment  of  the  wicked  is  not  dilciplinary,  and  that  Chrifl:  hath 
not  fo  redeemed  sU  men  from  annihilation,  that  no  man  is 
nov/  hable  to  it,   if  indeed  that  be  the  curfe  of  the  law. 

I.  If  annihilation  be  the  curfe  of  the  divine  law,  and 
the  torments  of  hell  be  a  mere  falutary  difcipline  ;  then 
there  is  no  forgivenefs  in  exemptinp-  a  fmner  from  thofe 
torments.  To  forgive  a  linner  is  to  exempt  or  releafe 
him  from  the  curfe  of  the  law ;  not  to  excufe  him  from  a 

falutary 

II  Ibid.  p.  244.      **  Ibid.  p.  140.      ft  ^^^^-  P-.I44- 


Pumjhment  of  the  damned,  I  la 

falutary  me"an  of  grace.  If  a  phyficlan  excufe  his  patient 
from  an  emetic  or  from  the  cold  bath,  no  man  will  pre- 
tend, that  he  exercifes  forgiving  grace. 

2.  I  WISH  the  reader  to  attend  to  Gal.  III.  lo; 
'^  For  as  many  a::  are  of  the  works  of  the  law,  are  under 
*^  the  curfe  :  for  it  is  written  curfed  is  every  one  that  con- 
'^  tinueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book  of  the  law 
*'  to  do  them. '^  This  proves  that  all  men  are  not  sbro-* 
lutely  delivered  from  the  cnrfe  of  the  law^,  whether  that 
curfe  conliilin  annihilation, or  mifery  temporary  or  endlefs : 
becaufe  fome  men  are  evidently  fuppofed  in  this  text,  to 
be  expofcd  to  that  curfe.  *^  As  many  as  are  of  the 
*^  works  of  the  law,"  as  doubtlefs  many  of  the  Jews  of 
that  day  were,  are  expreiHy  faid  to  be  '*  under  the  curfe." 
They  therefore  were  not  akfolutely  and  vncoridittonally  de- 
livered from  that  curfe.  But  if  the  curfe  of  the  law  be  an- 
nihilation, and  all  men  be  unconditionally  delivered  by 
Chrift  from  that  curie,   how  can  any  man  be  under  it  ? 

If  it  iliould  be  faid,  that  this  text  is  nothing  to  the  pur- 
pofe,  becaufe  the  curfe  here  mentioned  is  the  curfe,  not  of 
the  m.oral^  but  of  the  ceremonial  law  ;  it  may  be  anfwered. 
If  this  text,  with  the  context  fay  nothing  of  redemption 
from  the  curfe  of  the  moral  law,  how  isitknov.n,  that 
Chrift,  according  to  the  hypotheiis  nov/  under  confiderati- 
on,  haih  delivered  all  m^en  unconditionally  from  annihila- 
tion, which  is  fuppofed  to  be  the  curfe  of  the  moral  law  ? 
It  is  the  13th  verfe,  which  allures  us,  that  '^  Chrlit  hath 
redeemed  us  from  the  curie  of  the  law."  If  this  mean  the 
ceremonial  law,  it  fccms,  we  have  no  alTurance  that  Chrift 
hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curfe  of  the  moral  law,  be  that 
annihilation  or  what  it  may  ;  but  all  that  Chrift  hath  done 
or  fuffer^d  notwithftanding,  we  are  as  liable  to  that  curfe^ 
as  we  were  before  Chrift  undertook  for  us. 

Besides,  the  curfe  of  the  law  here  mentioned,  is  the  ve- 
ry curfe  mentioned  in  Deut.  XXVII,  26,  from  which  it  is 
quoted.  But  that  was  not  the  curfe  of  the  cerem.onial 
law,  but  of  the  moral,  as  every  precept  enum.erated  in 
that  context,  and  to  which  this  curfe  is  annexed,  is  pure- 
ly moral. -Or  if  this  curfe  be  that  to  which  any  man 

is  liable,  who  tranfgreiTcs  any  precept,  written  in  tlie 
book  of  the  law  ;  it  will  certainly  include  the  curfe  of  the 
moral  law.  For  whether  the  hook  mentioned,  be  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy,  or  the  whole  Pentateuch,  it  con- 

O  tained 


j^i^  'Jnmh'ihihn  mt  the 

tained  the  whole  moral  law.  Therefore  the  curfe  hcrff 
mentioned  includes  the  curfe  of  the  vioral  law.  And  in- 
deed with  refpcft  to  us  under  the  gofpel,  the  t«xt  muft 
mean  the  moral  law  only,  beeaufe,  as  the  ceren:onial  law  is 
now  repealed,  it  is  no  longer  in  exiftence, and  therefore  is  no 

lono-er  contained  in  the  bock  of  the  law. Further,  if  the 

redemption  of  Chrift  was  a  redemption  from  the  curfe  of 
the  ceremonial  law  only;  then  it  had  no  refpeftatall  tons 
Gentiles,  who  never  were  under  the  ceremonial  law  ;  nor 
are  we  in  any  refpect  redeemicd  by  Chrift. 

It  is  alfo  to  be  obi'erved,  that  Uiis  curfe  is  oppofed  by 
the  apollle, throughout  the  context,  to  the  bleiling  cf  Abra- 
ham, as  is  manifelt  by  infpettion.  But  the  bltiling  of  A- 
braham  did  not  coniift  in  freedom  from  the  ceremonial  law. 
If  it  confuled  in  that,  the  Gentiles  originally  polTeiTed  the 
blefiing  of  Abrrihum,  fmce  they  v/cre  asperfc61:ly  free  from 
the  ceremonial  law,  as  Abraham  himfelf.  Whereas  the 
coming  of  the  bieilmg  of  Abraham  on  the  Gentiles  is  fpo- 
ken  of  as  a  nev/  and  adventitious  bleffng,  not  as  one  origi- 
nally polTelTed  by  them  j  fee  v.  8  and  14.  The  blelfing  of 
A^braham  is  not  only  not  faid  to  confirc  in  bare  freedom  from 
theceremoniallaw,  but  it  is  pcfitiveiy  faid  to  ccnfift  in  jufti- 
Ikation  by  faith  ;  v.  6 — lo.  v.  I4und2c. 

This  pallage  throws  light  on  the  prefent  quefticn  in  a- 
nother  point  of  view.-  As  the  curie  of  the  law  is  fet  in  di- 
rect oppoiition  to  the  bleffing  of  Abraham,  all  who  arc  not 
entitled  to  the  blclhng  of  Abraham^  are  of  courfc  under 
the  curfe,  and  are  not  unconditionally    rclcued  from  it  by 

Jefus  Chrift. If  it  fhould  be  faid,   that  ihc   bleffmg   of 

Abraham  is  ccm.mon  to  all"  mankind,  all  being  juftified  and 
exeicpted  from  the  curfe  of  the  law,  as  he  was  ;  let  it  be 
obfervcd,  that  Abraham  obtained  this  bleliing  in  confe- 
quence  of  faith  only  ;  and  will  it  be  pretended,  that  all 
men  are  iiovv-  the  inbjefts  of  the  faith  of  Abraham?  The 
apoftle  cenftantly  ipeaks  of  this  bleffng  as  fuipended  en 
the  condition  of  faith  :  v.  7,  ^*lhey  ANhich  are  of  faitli, 
the  fame  are  the  children  of  Abraham.''  V.  8,  **  Ihe 
fcripture,  forefeeing  that  God  Vv  ould  juflify  the  heathen 
through  faith.''  V.  9,  **  They  v^hith  be  of  faith,  2.yq 
blellcd  with  faithful  Abraham.^'  V.  14,  <*  That  the  blef- 
fmg of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through,  Je- 
fus Chrift  ;  that  we  might  receive  the  promJfe  of  the 
fpirit  through  faith.''     V.  29,   *'  If  ye  be    Chrift^s,  then 

are 


Piinijhment  of  the  damned,  lij* 

are  yc Abraham's  feed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promife." 
Now  if  faith  in  Chriit  be  neceHary  to  the  inheritance  of  the 
blelling  of  Abraham,  and  ail  who  arc  not  entitled  to  that 
bleiling,  be  hable  to  the  curfe  of  the  law  ;  then  it  cannot 
be  true,  that  all  mankind  are  unconditionally  freed  by 
Chrift  from  the  curfc  of  the  law,  whether  that  curfe  be 
annihilation  or  any  thing  elfe. 

3.  On  the  hypotheiis  now  under  confideration,  what 
are  pardon  and  juftification  ?  They  are  every  where  in 
IjriptLire  reprefented  to  be  conditional,  fufpended  on  the 
conditions  of  repentance  and  faith ;  and  the  fame  is  abun- 
dantly holden  by  Dr.  C  however  inconiiiiently  with  his 
other  tenet  concerning  the  unconditional  exemption  of  all 
men  froai  the  curfe  of  the  law.  The  language  of  fcrip- 
ture  is,  He  that  belie veth  ihall  be  favcd  ;  but  he  that  bc- 
lievcth  not,  fhall  be  damned.  He  that  believeth  not  is  con- 
demned already — the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him,  &c,  &c. 
How  can  thofe  be  condemned,  and  how  can  the  wrath  of 
God  abide  on  thofe,  v/ho  are  unconditionally  delivered  from 
the  curfe  of  the  law  ?  Pardon  is  generally  fuppofed  tocon- 
fift  in  an  acquittance  from  the  curfe  of  the  law :  but  if  all 
men,  penitent  and  impenitent,  believing  and  unbelieving, 
be  acquitted  and  delivered  from  that  curfe,  v/hcre  is  the 
propriety  or  truth  of  limiting  pardon  to  the  penitent  and 
believino-,  and  of  declarino;  that  all  the  reft  of  men  are  con- 
demned  ?  To  v.  hat  are  they  condemned?  Not  to  fuifer 
the  curfe  of  the  law  :  From  this  they  are  by  fuppofition 
unconditionally  delivered.  By  what  are  they  condemned? 
Not  hj  the  lavv^  :  this  would  imply,  that  they  are  under 
the  curfe  of  it. 

If  to  this  it  be  faid,  that  the  impenitent  are  condemned 
to  fufFsr  the  curfe  of  the  law,  in  this  fenfe  only,  that  the 
law  declares  the  punidiment  to  which,  according  to  ftrift 
juftice^.  they  are  liable  ;  but  not  that  punilhment  to  which 
they  are  nov/  liable,  ilnce  the  redemption  of  Chrift; — To 
this  it  may  be  anfwcrcd,  In  this  ^en^z  the  penitent  and  be- 
lieving are  equally  condemned,  as  the  impenitent  and  un- 
believing ;  nay,  the  whole  body^of  the  iaints  in  heaven. 
Nor  would  there  be  any  truth  in  faying, in  this  fenfe,  '^  Kc 
that  believeth  on  Cliriil,  is  not  condemned.'' 

4.  That  Tingle  text,  Gal  V.  2,  feems  to  confute  the 
hypothefis  now  in  queftion.  The  words  arc,  **  If  ye  be 
^/'  drcumcifed,  Chrift  faa]!  profit  you  nothing.''    Whereas 

according 

w9 


\ 


ji6  Annihilation  not  the 

according  to  the  hypothefis  now  in  queftion,  whether  the 
Galatians  were  circumcifed  or  not ;  whether  they  depended 
on  their  circumciiion  and  other  conformity  to  ceremonial 
inftitutions  or  not  :  flill  Chrill  did  profit  ihem  ;  ftill  by 
him  was  unconditionally  fecured  to  them  the  infinite  pro- 
fit of  efcape  from  rhe  curfe  of  the  law,  and  of  an  endlefs 
life  of  happinefs  and  glory  in  heaven. 

This  argument  is  equally  conclufive,  whether  it  be  fup- 
pofed  that  Clirift  has  unconditionally  refcued  all  men  from 
annihilation  or  any  other  punifhmcnt.  If  falvation  be  fe- 
cured to  all  men  by  Chrift,  then  he  does  profit  them,  how- 
ever they  be  circumcifed  o.'  depend  on  their  circum- 
ciiion. 

Beside  the  two  lights  in  which  the  doctrine  of  annihi- 
lation hath  been  dated  above,  there  is  another  in  v/hich 
fome  fecm  to  hold  that  doftrine  ;  it  is  this,  That  if  after 
God  fhall  have  ufed  all  proper  means  for  the  repentance 
and  falvation  of  the  wicked,  they  fliall  ftill  remain  impeni- 
tent, he  will  annihilate  them  from  defpair  of  ever  bring- 
ing them  to  good. Concerning  this  fentiment  it  may- 
be inquired,  what  then  is  the  curie  of  the  lav/  ?  Is  it  an- 
nihilation ?  If  fo,  then  I  refer  to  the  arguments  already 
urged  in  this  chapter  againft  that  idea  ;  viz.  That  on  that 
fuppofition  endlefs  puniThment  is  juft :  That  the  fcripture 
abundantly  reprelents  the  punifnment  of  the  damned  to 
confifl  in  mifery  :  That  the  punifliment  of  all  who  fuffer 
the  curfe  of  the  law  vvdii  be  equal  :  That  the  curfe  of  the 
law  is  the  fame  punifhment  which  the  devils  fuffer,  which 
is  not  annihilation  :  That  the  punifliment  v/hich  the  finally 
impenitent  flrall  fuffer,  will  be  fuch,  that  in  it  God  will 
difplay  both  his  wrath  and  power,  and  greater  degrees  of 
wrath  and  power  in  the  cafe  of  thofe,,with  refpeft  to 
whom  he  exercifes  the  greatefl  long-fufferiug  :  which  can- 
not be  true,  if  the  curfe  of  the  law  be  annihilation,  as  that 
is  not  an  exertion  of  power  at  all,  or  a  difplay  of  greater 
"wrath  and  pov.er  in  the  cafe  of  one  (inner  than  of  another. 
Ifitbefaid,  that  the  curfe  of  the  law  is  that  difcipline 
which  the  wicked  fhall  fu'Fer,  before  they  be  annihilated, 
I  refer  to  what  has  been  faid,  chap.  II  and  III. — If  it  be 
granted  iiiat  the  curfe  of  the  law  is  endlefs  mifery  ;  either 
it  muft  be  allowed,  that  endlefs  mifery  will  be  fuifered  by 
fome  men  ;  or  that  though  endlefs  mifery  be  the  curfe  of 
the  law,  Chriil  hath  redeemed  and  \yiii  fave  all  men  from 

it. 


Punijljmmtofthedamtwd,  117 

it,  by  admitting  fome  to  endlefs  happinefs,  and  by  inflict- 
ing on  others  endlefs  annihilation.  With  refpecl  to  this 
kit  fentiment,  I  beg  leave  to  refer  to  the  confiderations  al- 
ready hinted  in  this  chapter  :  and  that  the  curfe  of  the 
law,  or  all  that  puniihment  which  the  wicked  jullly  de- 
ferve,  whether  it  confilt  in  endlefs  mifery  or  any  thing 
clfe,  will  actually  be  inflided,  hath  been  attempted  to  be 
proved  in  chap.  HI. 

On  the  whole  ;  it  is  left  with  the  candid  and  judicious 
to  determine,  whether  annihilation  be  the  curfe  of  the 
law  :  and  whether  that  as  the  curfe  of  the  law  can  be  re- 
conciled with  the  fcriptures,   on   either  of  the  foremen- 

tioned  hypothefes. 1.  That  all  who  die  in  impenitence, 

will  be  annihilated,  as  the  proper  and  adequate  puniih- 
ment of  their  fms  in  this  life. 2.  That  annihilation  was 

originally  the  curfe  of  the  law  ;   but  that  Chrift  hath  ref- 

cued  all  from  it. If  it  fliall  be  found  that  annihilation 

in  any  view  of  it,  is  not  the  curfe  of  the  law ;  it  will  re- 
main, that  that  curfe  confifts  either  in  that  punifhment 
which  linners  a(^ually  fuffer  in  hell ;  or  in  fpme  temporary 
mifery  greater  than  that  which  they  aftually  fuffer  in  hell ; 
or  in  endlefs  mifery.  In  which  of  thefe  it  does  confift, 
fhall  be  farther  inquired  in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAP.      VI. 

The  Juflict  of  endlefs  Punifhment  confifling  in  Mifery, 

ACCORDING  to  what  was  propofed  in  the  clofe  of  the 
laft  chapter,  I  am  to  inquire  in  the  firft  place.  Whe- 
ther the  curfe  of  the  law,  or  the  punifhment  which  in  the 
divine  law  is  threatened  againft  tranfgrelTors,  confift  in  that 
punifhment  which  the  wicked  will  adually  fuffer  in  hell. — 
That  this  cannot  be  the  curfe  of  the  law,  on  the  fuppofition 
that  all  men  are  to  be  faved,  appears  at  firft  blufh  from 
this  confideration,  that  fome  men  will  aftually  fufrer  that 
punifliment :  and  if  that  punifhment  be  the  curfe  of  the 
lav/,  fome  men  will  be  damned  and  not  faved.  For  falva- 
tion  confifts  in  deliverance  from  the  curfe  of  the  law. 
"  Chrift  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curfe  of  the  law  :" 
and  ail  v/ho  are  fiived,  are  faved   by  the  redemption  of 

Chrift, 


ti9  The  Jujlue  of  endlefs   Pumflmient 

Chrift,  which  is  a  redemption  from  the  curfe  of  the  law. 
But  fince  all  men  are  not  faved  from  that  puniihmeut 
which  a  great  part  actually  fufFer  in  hell ;  it  is  abl'urd  lo 
fay,  that  that  puniihment  is  the  curfe  of  the  law  from 
which  Chrilf  hath  redeemed  and  will  fave  all  men. 

I  MEAN  not  now  to  enter  into  any  difpute  concerning 
the  nature  of  Chrid's  redemption.  It  is  fufFicicnt  for  my 
prefent  purpofe  to  take  for  granted  no  moFC,  than  is  grant- 
ed by  all  chriftians,  that  all  who  are  favcd^  are  faved  fome 
.how  by  and  through  Chrifl.  This  is  abandantly  aiTcrted  in 
the  various  works  of  Dr.  C.  But  neither  has  he  pretended 
nor  will  any  other  advocate  for  univcrfal  falvation  pre- 
tend, that  the  puniiliment  which  is  actually  to  be  iufrVred 
by  a  great  part  of  mankind  in  hell,  is  the  curfe  of  the  law 
from  which  Chrilt  is  to  fave  all  men  :  becaufe  by  the  very 
terms  a  great  part  of  mankind  are  aclualiy  to  fuffer  it. 

Beside  ;  if  that  be  the  curfe  of  the  law  ;  it  is  all  the 
puniihment  to  which  the  fmner  is  juftly  liable.  He  having 
fuilered  that,  cannot  confidently  with  juflice  be  made  to 
fufFer  any  further  puniiliment  ;  and  if  after  that  he  be  ex- 
empted from  further  puni/liment,  he  is  exempted  from  it, 
not  in  the  way  of  grace,  forgivenefs  or  pardon  ;  but  en- 
tirely on  the  footing  t)f  juftice  and  of  his  own  pcrfonal 
right.  It  is  to  be  noticed  however,  that  the  gofpel  is  ig- 
norant of  any  falvation  of  fmncrs,  except  in  the  v/ay  of 
frrace  and  forn-ivenefs. 

o  o 

If  the  puniihment  a(ftually  to  be  fuffered  in  hell  be  the 
curfe  cf  the  law,  then  the  damned  in  thcit*"  deliverance  out 
of  hell,  and  exemption  from  further  punifhment,  experi- 
ence no  falvation  at  all  They  ane  deUvered  from  nothing 
to  which  they  arc  or  ever  were  expofed.  Wc  might  as 
well  fay,  that  the  mofb  innocent  citizen  in  the  (late  is  faved 
from  the  gallows,   when  he   hath   neither   committed   any 

crime,  nor  is  accufed  of  any. The  very  idea  of  i'alvation 

is  deliverance  from  the  curfe  of  the  law.  But  if  the  pains 
of  hell  for  ages  of  ages  be  the  curfe  of  the  law,  they  who 
fuuer  thofepain?,  arc  not  faved;  they  are  damned  to  the 
highefi  pofllble  degree  confiilent  with  law  and  juiVice;  . 
which  is  all  the  damnation  for  which  any  man  can  argue. 
•  On  the  whole,  I  conclude,  that  the  idea^  thatthe  curfe 
of  the  law  confifcs  in  the  punilliMieiit,  which  tlie  damned 
are  aftually  to  fufFer  in  hell,  is  totally  ii-reconc  lie  able  Vvith 
jihc  falvation  of  all  men. 

In 


conffting  In  Mifery,  ti^ 

In  the  next  place  we  are  to  inquire,  whether  the  curfe 
of  the  law  confiPc  in  Ibme  temporary  punifliment,  which  is 
of  greater  duration  than  that  which  is  fuppoi'ed  to  belong 
to  the  punifhment  which  the  damned  fnall  actually  fuller. 
If  the  curfe  of  the  lav/  be  a  temporary  punifhment  of  great- 
er duration  than  that  v,  hich  is  actually  to  be  fuffered  by  the 
damned  ;  that  more  hiling  temporary  punifnment  is  doubt- 
lefs  threatened  in  the  law.  Eioubtlefs  the  curfe  of  the  law 
is  the  curfe  threatened  in  law  :  the  very  terms  imply  this. 
Now^  where  in  all  the  law,  or  in  all  the  fcripture,  is  threat- 
ened any  punishment  of  greater  duration,  than  that  which 
in  the  lacred  dialect  is  faid  to  be  everkjitng^  for  ever,  forever 
and  ever y  Sec  I  But  all  thefe  exprefiions  are  on  ail  hands 
allowed  to  be  applied  in  Icripturc  to  the  punifhrnent  which 
the  damned  ihall  acluaily  fuffer.  Unleis  therefore  fome 
longer  puniihment  cn.n  be  found  threatened  in  fcripture, 
than  that  which  is  faid  to  he  forever  and  ever ,  &s,  it  cannot 
be  pretended,  that  the  curfe  of  the  law  is  a  temporary  pu- 
nilliment  of  greater  duration,  than  that  which  is  aftually 
to  be  fuffered  by  the  damned.  But  no  puniflimenf  of  great- 
er duration,  whether  temporary  or  endlcfs,  than  that 
which  the  damned  are  conibntly  declared  to  fufver,  can  be 
pointed  out  from  any  part  of  fcripture.  1  herefore  the 
curfe  of  the  law  is  not  %  temporary  puniO:mcnt  of  greater 
duration,  than  that  which  is  to  be  fuffered  by  the  damn- 
ed. 

Now,  if  this  train  cf  reafoning  be  juil,  if  the  curfe  of 
the  divine  law  be  neither  annihilation,  nor  (on  the  fuppo- 
fition  of  the  falvation  of  all  men)  that  miiery  Vvhich  the 
damned  are  acftually  to  fuifer  ;  nor  a  temporary  mifery  of 
greater  duration  ;  the  confequcnce  is  inevitable,  that  it  is 
cndlefs  mifery.  I'vo  other  hypothecs  feerns  to  be  conceiva- 
ble. The  law  certainly  threatens  Tome  punifnment.  This 
punifhment  muft  confifl  either  in  annihilation,  or  in  fome- 
thincr  elfe.  If  it  coniifl-  in  foraethina;  elfe,  that  fomethinjr 
mufi-  be  either  temporary  or  endlefs  mifery.  If  it  be  tem- 
porary mifery,  it  mufl  be  either  a  mifery  of  ihcrter  dura- 
tion than  that  v/hich  is  to  be  fuffered  by  ihe  damned  ;  or 
that  very  mifery  which  is  to  be  fufTered  by  the  damned;  or 
a  temporary  mifery  of  longer  duration.  That  the  curfe 
«f  the  law  is  a  mifery  of  jhorter  duration  than  that  v/hich 
is  to  be  fuffered  by  the  damned,  no  man  will  pretend  ;  as 
i\\i%  would  imply  that  tks  damned  v/ill  fuffer  a  greater  pu- 
niihment 


ti6  The  Juftice  cf  endlefs  Pum/I.ment 

Tiifliment  than  was  ever  threatened,  and  than  is  juft.  And 
that  the  curfe  of  the  law  is  neither  the  very  mifery  to  be 
fuffered  by  the  damned,  nor  a  temporary  mifery  of  longer 
duration,  I  have  endeavoured  to  prove,  and  fubmit  the 
proof  to  the  candid  and  judicious*  If  the  proof  fhall  be 
found  to  be  good,  we  are  driven  to  the  conclufion,  that 
the  curfe  of  the  divine  law  is  endlefs  mifery. 

If  then  it  be  an  eftablilhed  point,  that  endlefs  mifery  is 
the  curfe  of  the  divine  law  ;  the  inference  is  immediate 
and  necelTary,  that  the  endlefs  mifery  of  the  fmner  is  a 
juft  punifhment  of  his  fin.  It  is  impolfible  that  a  God  of 
inviolable  and  infinite  juftice  fhould  threaten  in  his  law  an 
unjuft  punillmient.  A  law  containing  fuch  a  threatening, 
is  an  unjuft  lav/  ;   and  an  unjuft  law  can  never  be  enacted 

by  a  legiflator  of  perfetl  juftice. It  is   in  vain  to  fay, 

that  God  will  never  execute  the  law.  To  make  an  unjuft 
law,  is  as  really  irreconcileable  with  juftice,  as  to  execute 
it.  What  fliould  we  think  of  a  human  prince  v/ho  fhould 
enaft  a  law,  that  whoever  (liould  walk  acrofs  his  neighbour's 
ground  without  his  confent, fhould  die  on  the  gallows.  I  pre. 
iume  no  man  would  pretend,  that  the  forbearance  of  the 
prince  to  execute  the  law,  would  fave  his  charader  from 
abhorrence  and  contempt. 

Again;  If  all  men  ihall  be  faved,  they  will  be  faved 
from  fomething,  from  fome  punifliment.  That  punifti- 
ment  muft  be  either  temporary  or  endlefs.  If  it  be  tem- 
porary, it  muft  be  either  that  puniihment,  which  is  to  be 
endured  by  the  damned,  or  a  longer  temporary  punifli- 
ment. But  for  reafons  already  given,  it  can  be  neither  of 
thefe.  Therefore  it  muft  be  an  endlefs  punifliment.  But 
if  all  men  be  faved  from  an  endlefs  punifhment,  they  were 
cxpofed  to  an  endlefs  punifhment,  and  expcfed  to  it  by  a 
divine  conftitution,  and  therefore  an  endlefs  punifhment  is 
juft  ;   otherwife  it  could  not  have  been  appointed  by  Cod. 

If  ail  men  fnall  be  faved,  they  are  redeemed  by  Chrift, 
and  they  are  redeemed  by  him  from  fom.e  punifhment. 
That  punifhment  is  either  temporary  or  endlefs.  If  it  be 
temporary,  it  is  either  the  puniihment  which  the  damned 
fliall  aclually  fuffer,  or  a  longer  temporary  punifhment. 
But  for  reafons  already  given  it  is  neither  of  thele.  There- 
fore, it  is  an  endlefs  punifhment.  Therefore  they  were 
cxpofed  to  an  endlefs  punifliment,  and  that  punifhment  is 
juft.     Surely  no  Chriftian  will  pretend,  that  our  Lord  Je- 

fus 


conjifting  in  Mifery,  j^i 

fus  Chrift  came  to  redeem  and  fave  us  from  a  puni/hmcnt 
to  which  we  never  were  expofed,  and  which  the  very  juf- 
tice  of  God  would  never  permit  him  to  inflicft. 

If  endlei's  puniihment  be  unjuft,  it  feems  that  Chrifl 
came  to  fave  mankind  from  an  unjuft  punifhment;  a  pu- 
nifhment,  to  which  they  were  not  juftly  hable,  and  which 
could  not  be  inflicted  on  them  confiftently  with  juftice. 
But  what  an  idea  does  this  give  us  of  God  ?  It  implies, 
that  he  had  made  an  unjuft  law,  denouncing  an  unjuft  pe- 
nalty ;  that  having  made  this  law,  he  v/as  determined  to 
execute  it,  till  Chrift  came  and  prevented  him. 

If  all  men  fliall  be  faved,  and  fhall  be  faved  in  the  way 
of  grace,  favour,  pardon  or  forgivenefs  ;  then  it  would  be 
juft,  that  they  fnould  not  be  i'aved.  If  their  deliverance  im- 
ply grace  and  forgivenefs,  then  it  woald  be  juft,  that  they 
Ihould  not  be  delivered,  and  that  they  Ihculd  fuffer  that 
puni/hment  froni  which  they  are  delivered.  But  fcF  rea- 
fons  already  given,  if  all  men  fhall  be  faved,  they  Ihall  be 
faved  from  an  endlefs  puniiliment.  And  to  be  faved  from 
an  endlefs  puniihment  not  on  the  footing  of  juftice,  but  by 
mere  grace  and  forgivenefs,  implies,  that  the  infliction  of 
endlefs  puniihment  would  be  juft.  Surely  to  liberate  a 
peri'on  from  an  unjuft  puniihment,  is  no  a6l  of  forgivenefs. 
All  the  afcriptions  of  praife,  and  all  hymns  of  thankf- 
giving  fung  by  the  faved  on  account  of  their  falvation, 
prove,  that  it  would  have  been  juft,  that  they  ftiould  noc 
be  faved.  If  God  in  delivering  all  men  from  endlefs  pu- 
niihment, be  worthy  of  praife  and  thankfgiving,  it  would 
have  beeu  juft,  if  he  had  not  delivered  them  from  it.  A 
mere  a6l  of  juftice,  which  the  objedt  of  it  may  demand  on 
the  footing  of  his  perfonal  right,  does  not  infer,  an  obli- 
gation to  any  great  praife  or  thankfgiving.  No  man  con- 
ceives hhnfelf  bound  very  much  to  praife  another  for  gi- 
ving him  his  due,  or  for  not  injuring  him,  or  for  not  pu- 
nifhing  him,  when  he  deferves  no  puniihment.  But  the 
only  punifhment,  from  v/hich  God  delivers  all  men,  on  the 
fuppoiition,  that  all  are  to  be  faved,  is  aii  endlefs  puniili- 
ment, as  was  ihewn before.  Therefore^  unlefs  endlefs  pu- 
niihment be  juft,  there -is  no  foundation  for  praife  and 
thankfgiving  for  the  falvation  of  all  men. 

If  endlei's  puniilmient  be  unjuft,  then  God  was  bound 
in  juftice  to  fave  ail  m.en  from  it,  and  could  no  more  fail 
of  granting  this  falvation,  than  he  could  cienv  himfeif :   and 

R  hs 


tTi  The  Juflice  of  endkfs  Pumfnment 

hef  was  bound  in  jufbice  to  do  whatever  was  necefiary  td 
that  falvation,  and  if  that  falvation  could  not  be. diipenied, 
but  in  conieqiience  of  the  incarnation  and  death  of  ChrJlt ; 
then  unlefs  God  had  given  his  fon  to  become  incarnate  and 
to  die,  he  vrould  have  committed  injuftice.  So  that  on 
this  plan,  the  very  gift  of  Chriil,  of  the  gofpel,  and  of  all 
the  means  of  grace,  are  mere  acts  of  juilke,  .and  not  of 
grace  or  favour  :  and  the  revelation  of  the  gofpel  or  of 
the  lalvation  of  all  men  is  no  gracious  communication,  but 
a  communication  made  entirely  on  the  foundation  of  juftice. 
For  furely  it  is  but  an  act  of  jullice  to  tell  mankind,  if 
there  be  any  need  of  telling  them,  that  God  will  not  injure 
them,  and  fo  preferve  them  from  the  tormenting  fear  of 
injury  from  the  hand  of  God.  To  have  kept  them  with- 
out the  neceiTary  means  of  knowing  this,  would  have  fa- 
voured of  cruelty. Yet  according  to  the  fcriptures   the 

forementioned  divine  ads  and    communications  are  no  a£ts 
of  juftice,  but  of  free  and  infinite  grace. 

If  endleis  puniflmient  be  unjuft,  it  is  hard  to  imagine  of 
what  advantage  the  mediation  and  redemption  of  Chriil  is 
to  all  mankind.  Dr.  C.  fpeakinp-  of  his  own  fcheme  of 
univerlal  lalvation,  fays,  ^^Nor  is  there  any  fcheme  that 
^*  fo  illuftrioufiy  lets  forth  the  powerful  eiiicacy  and  ex- 
tenfive  advantage  of  the  mediation  of  Jefus  Chrift.  If 
mankind  univerlally  are  the  cbjecl.s  of  his  concern,  if  he 
died  for  them  all,  if  he  afcended  up  to  heaven  for  them 
all,  if  he  is  there  acling  on  their  behalf,  and  managing 
all  things  in  the  kingdom  of  grace,  with  a  viev/  to  their 
falvatioUj  and  will  not  give  up  his  miniftry  in  this  kino-- 
**  dom,  till  he  has  actually  accompli/bed  this  great  defign, 
'^  and  inflated  the  whole  human  kind  in  eternal  glory, 
*'  what  more  noble  idea  can  v/e  form  of  his  undertaking 
**  for  us? ^'  &c.  *  What  is '^  the  powerful  eiiicacy  and  ex- 
tenfive  advantage  of  the  mediation  of  Chriil:,''  with  regard 
to  thofe,  who  fuffer  for  ages  of  ages,  as  Dr.  C.  alioy/s  fome 
men  do?  Is  ^^  the  powerful  efficacy  and  extenlive  advan- 
tage of  Chrift's  mediation"  "  illuftricufly  fet  forth"'  in  de- 
livering them  from  sn  unjuft  punishment  ?  is  the  idea,  that 
Chrift  came  to  fave  them  from  a  puniihment,  which  they 
do  not  deferve,  **  the  moft  noble  idea  w^e  can  form  of  his 
undertaking?"  Thofe  who  are  faved  by  Chrift,  without 
fuffering  the  torments  of  hell,    do  indeed  derive  fonie    ad- 


p.  14. 


vantage 


conjifting  in  Mifery,  123 

VLintag-e  from  the  mediation  of  Chrift.  But  this  is  no  greatr 
.er  advantage  than  is  derived  from  Chrift,  according  to  the 
Icheme  of  thofe,  who  beheve  in  endlefs  pnniihment.  They 
hold,  that  all  who  are  preferved  from  hell,  are  prefcrved 
fi'om  it  by  Chrift.  But  what  advantage  do  thofe  men  de- 
rive from  Chriffc's  mediation,  whopafs  through  the  torments 
of  hell,  and  are  not  faved,  till  they  have  been  puniflied  for 
ages  of  ages  ?  To  fay  that  they  are  refcued  by  Chrifl  from 
endlefs  mifery,  is  either  to  give  up  the  prcfent  queflipn, 
and  to  allow  that  endlefs  mifery  is  jufl  ;  cr  it  is  to  give  -up 
the  moral  recTitudc  of  the  divine  charader,  and  to  hold, 
that  God  has  threatened,  and  was  about  to  inflicl:,  an  un- 
juflpuniikment.— — To  fay,  that  the  advantage,  which 
they  derive  from  Chrift,  is  that  they  are  refcued  from  a 
temporary  punifhment,  which  is  longer  than  forever  and 
ever,  is  to  fay,  that  for  which  there  is  no  foundation,  as  no 
fuch  punifhment  is  threatened  or  mentioned  in  fcripture. 
So  that  in  any  cafe,  if  endlefs  puniHimentbe  unjuft,  it  isim- 
polTible  to  im.igine,  of  what  advantage  the  mediation  and 
redemption  of  Ohrift  is  to  all  mankind. 

The  hope  of  the  gofpel  implies  that  endlefs  puniihment 
is  juft.  On  the  plan  of  univerfal  falvation,  all  men  are  en- 
couraged to  hope  that  they  fliall  be  delivered  from  fome 
puniihment.  Dr.  C.  applies  Ro'm.  VIII.  20,  to  all  men, 
and  fuppofes  that  they  are  all  fubje6ledto  vanity  in  hope  of 
*-^  deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  corruption,'' and  from 
'*"  the  final  confequences'^  of  it.*  That  is,  all  men  have  a 
jrround  to  hope,  that  they  Hiall  be  at  lail  delivered  from 
lin  and  it?  punifhment.  This  punifhment  as  v/e  have  feen, 
can  be  no  other  than  an  endlefs  punifliment.  But  that  God 
'encourages  us  to  hope,  that  we  may  efcape  endlefs  punifh- 
ment, as  clearly  implies  that  endlefs  punifliment  is  juft,  as 
his  en-jouraging  us  to  hope,  that  he  will  never  leave  us 
nor  forfake  us  in  this  life,  implies  that  it  would  be  juit,  if 
lie  fliould  leave  us.  If  endlefs  punifhment  be  not  juft, 
then  God  encourages  us  to  hope,  that  he  will  not  injure  us, 
will  not  rob  us  of  our  rights  or  tyrannize  over  us  !  The 
yery  idea  of  hope  in  this  cafe,  implies  feme  dinger  that 
God  will  injure  us ;  however  that  there  is  a  pofhbility,  and 
therefore  a  foundation  to  hope,   that  he  will  not  injure  us. 

If  endlefs  punifliment  be  unjui't,  we  are  as  fure,  that  it 
will  never  be  inflicted,  as  we  are  of  the  juftice  oi  God^  or 

as 

*  P.  ic6,  119. 


124  '^^^  Ju/iice  of  endlefs  PuniJJoment 

as  we  are,  that  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  will  do  right. 
But  are  we  ever  encouraged  in  fcripture  barely  to  hopCy 
that  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  will  do  right  ? — What  if  a 
fubjeft  who  has  always  entirely  conformed  to  the  laws  of 
his  prince  and  is  conicious  of  his  own  innocence,  and  alfo 
knows  that  his  prince  is  fully  informed  of  it,  Ihould  fay, 
that 'he  hopes  his  prince  will  not  order  him  to  be  executed 
as  a  felon  ?  This  would  certainly  imply  great  diffidence 
in  the  juftice  of  his  prince,  and  would  be  a  high  reflection 
on  his  chara6ter.  Much  more  is  it  a  refieftion  on  the  cha- 
radter  of  God,  to  exprefs  a  bare  hope,  that  under  his  go- 
vernment, no  man  v/ill  be  puniihed  with  an  unjuft 
puniihment. 

The  promifes  of  the  gofpel  appear  to  be  a  further  proof 
of  the  juftice  of  endlefs  puniihment.  They  are  promifes  of 
deliv^erance  from  fome  punifliment.  If  there  be  any  pro- 
mifes of  the  falvation  of  all  men,  they  are  not  promifes 
that  all  fhall  wholly  efcape  the  punifhment  of  hell.  Dr. 
C.  and  others  grant,  that  fome  men  v>'ill  fuffer  that  pu- 
niihment. Nor  are  they  promii'es  of  efcape  from  a  longer 
temporary  puniihment,  than  that  of  hell,  as  there  is  no 
mention  in  all  the  fcripture  of  fuch  a  puniiliment.  There- 
fore they  are  promifes  of  deliverance  from  endlefs  punifli- 
ment.  Therefore  endlels  puniiliment  isjuft:  otherwife 
the  promifes  that  God  will  fave  from  it,  would  be  abfurd. 
The  very  idea,  that  God  promiies  to  fave  from  endlefs 
puniiliment,  implies  that  he  has  a  righ|  to  inflicl;  it.  Do 
we  ever  find  God  promJfmg  in  fcripturey  that  he  will  not 
injure  or  tyrannize  over  his  creatures  ?  And  are  the  ^^  ex- 
''  ceeding  great  and  precious  promifes,'^  which  the  apof- 
tle  Peter  mentions,  merely  alTurances  that  we  iliall  not  be 
treated  by  God  unjuftly?  There  would  be  nothing  at  all 
precious  in  fuch  promiies  ;  becaufe  they  would  give  us  no 
greater  fecurity  from  fuch  injury,  than  we  fliculd  have 
without  them.  If  the  bare  juftice  of  God  do  not  fecure 
us  from  injury  at  his  hands,  neither  will  his  veracity.— 
What  ihould  we  think  of  a  prince  of  good  reputation  for 
juftice,  i£  he  make  proclamation,  that  he  would  not  pu- 
nifli  any  of  his  fubje^ts  ten  times  as  much  as  they  deferve ; 
and  ihould  call  this  an  exceeding  great  and  precious  pro- 
mile  ?  Whatever  we  might  before  have  thought  of  him 
and  of  his  government,  we  ihould  doubtlei's  then  think 
that  his  fabje61s  were  not  perfectly  fecure  in  their  rights. 

Dii. 


c on f\ fling  In  M'tftry,  22 

Dr.  C.  allows  that  it  is  our  duty  to  pray  for  the  fal- 
vation  of  all  men.  This  appears  efpecially  in  his  comment 
on  I  Tim.  II,  4,  &c.*  But  this  proves  the  juftice  of  end- 
lefs  punifhment.  If  we  are  to  pray  for  the  falvaiion  of  all 
men,  we  are  to  pray  that  they  may  be  delivered  from  the 
curfe  of  the  law  ;  which,  as  wx  have  feen  already,  is  an 
endlefs  punifhment.  Now,  to  pray  that  God  would  fave 
men  from  endlefs  punifhment  certainly  implies  an  acknow- 
ledgement of  juft  cxpofnre  to  fuch  puniihment.  Other- 
wife  there  would  be  as  much  propriety,  that  the  angels  a- 
round  the  throne  of  Gociy  iliould  pray,  that  they,  perfectly 
guiltlefs  as  they  are,  may  not  be  puniihed  with  the  tor- 
ments of  hell.  What  if  an  entirely  innocent  and  moft  du- 
tiful fubject  of  fome  earthly  prince,  and  one  who  is  by  all 
acknowledged  to  be  fuch,  iliould  prefer  a  petition  to  his 
prince,  that  he  would  not  order  the  petitioner  to  the  flake 
or  the  sallows  ? 

Hitherto  thejuftice  of  endlefs  punifliment  has  been 
confidered  on  the  ground  of  what  1  fuppofe  to  be  the  truth, 
that  it  is  deferved  by  every  fmner,  on  account  of  the  fins 
which  he  hath  committed  in  this  lite  only. — There  is  ano- 
ther ground,  on  which  it  may  be  fupported,  and  which  is 
equally  ineonfiftent  with  that  capital  argument  in  favor  of 
the  falvation  of  all  men,  that  endlefs  punifhment  is  not  re- 

concileable  withjudice. Though  it  were  not  jufl,  toin- 

flift  an  endlefs  puniihment  for  the  fins  committed  in  this 
life  only,  which  I  by  no  means  allow  ;  yet  there  would  be 
no  injuftice  in  fuitering  the  finner  to  go  on  in  fin,  and  to 
punifli  him  continually  and  without  end  as  he  fins. 

That  it  was  no  injuftice  in  God,  to  leave  man  at  firfl 
to  falljnto  fin,  will  doubtlefs  be  granted  by  all,  becaufe  it  is 
an  evident  faft.  Now  if  God  may  without  injury  permit 
a  creature  to  fall  into  fin  to  day,  and  punilh  him  for  it,  why 
may  he  not  do  the  fame  tomorrow,  andfo  on  through  eve- 
ry day  or  period  of  his  exiflence.  And  if  it  be  juft  to  leave 
a  finner  to  endlefs  fin,  it  is  doubtleft  jud  to  infiicl:  en  hini 
endlefs  puniihment  for  that  endlefs  fin.  Therefore  the 
endlels  lin  and  puniihment  of  a  creature  is  no  more  ineon- 
fiftent with  di^^ine  juftice,  than  the  exifience  of  fin  and  pu- 
niihment in  any  inltance,  and  for  ever  fo  iliort  a  duration. 
If  it  be  not  confident  with  judice,  that  a  finner  be  left  by 
God  to  endlefs  impenitence  ;  then  the  leading  of  a  finner 
*  P.  163.  to 


126  The  Jiifiice  ofendkfs  Punljhment 

to  repentance  is  an  a£l  of  mere  jullice,  the  payment  of  ii 
debt,  and  not  an  act  of  grace,  which  is  utterly  irreconcile- 

able  with  the  fcriptures. If  it  be  not  confiftent  with  j.uf- 

tice  to  leave  a  finner  to  final  impenitence,  then  God  is 
bound  in  juffice,  Ibme  time  or  other  to  lead  every  finner 
to  repentance.  But  when  is  this  time?  How  long  may 
God,  without  injury,  permit  the  finner  to  continue  impe- 
nitent/' If  he  may  for  one  day,  why  not  for  two?  for 
four ?  for  eight,  &c.  to  eternity? — Though  the  damned 
fhould,  by  their  fuiFerings,  fully  fatisfy  for  all  their  pall 
fms;  yet  God  would  be  no  more  obliged  in  juftice,  to  lead 
them  to  repentance,  or  to  preferve  them  from,  fin  in  future, 
than  he  was  obliged  to  preferve  them  from  iln  at  the  time 
they  firll  fell  into  it ;  and  confequently  he  would  not  be  ob- 
liged in  jultice  toreleafe  them  from  puniPnment.  I  take  it  to 
be  abundantly  conceded  by  Dr.  C.  that  the  damned  may 
juftly  be  puniflied  till  they  repent.  Therefore  if  they  ne- 
ver repent  they  may  juftly  be  punifned  Vvithout  end 

Now,  that  our  advocate  for  univerlal  falvation,  may  ef- 
tabli/h  his  favorite  propofition,  that  endlefs  puniihment  is 
not  reconcileable  v/ith  divine  jufdce  ;  he  mult  Ihow,  that 
it  is  not  confiitent  with  divine  juftice,  to  leave  a  fnmer  to 
proceed  without  end  in  his  own  chofen  courfe  of  f  n,  and 
to  punilh  him  daily  for  his  daity  fms.  Till  he  ihall  have 
done  this,  it  will  be  in  vain  for  him  to  plead,  that  thofe 
who  die  in  impenitence,  will-  all  finally  be  faved,  becaule 
endlefs  puni/hment  is  not  reconcileable  with  the  juftice  of 
God. 

If  after  all,  any  man  will  infiit,  that  endlefs  punifii- 
ment  is  not  reconcileable  with  divine  jultice?  he  ought 
fairly  to  anfwer  the  preceding  reafoning,  and  to  fliow  that 
the  curfe  of  the  divine  law  from  which  Chrift  hath  re- 
deemed us,  is  either  annihilation,  or  that  mifery  which 
the  damned  are  actually  to  fufFer  ;  or  a  longer  temporary 
mifery.  Ke  ought  to  fhov/  farther,  that  Chrilt  cam.e  to 
deliver  all  men  from  fome  other  puniiiiment,  than  that 
which  is  endlefs  ;  or  that  it  is  reconcileable  with  the  cha- 
racter of  God  to  refufe  to  releafe  man  from  an  unjuft  pu- 
niihment, without  ths  mediation  of  his  fon  :  that  deliv-er- 
ance  from  unjult  punifliment  is  an  a6t  of  free  grace, 
j)ardon,  or  forgivenefs  :  that  deliverance  front  an  unjult  pu- 
nifnment  is  a  proper  ground  of  extatic  and  evcriafiing 
praife  and  tliankfr-ivin^-  to  God.     1  nat  the  very  mifjion  of 


conji/lwg  In  MiferyU  tif 

Chrift,  the  inftltution  of  the  gofpel  and  of  any  means  rie* 
celTary  to  the  dehverance  of  imners  from  endlcfs  punifh- 
ment,  can  be  conlidered  as  gracious  gifts  and  inftitutions, 
on  any  other  fuppofition  than  that  endlefs  punifhment  is 
JLifl.  He  ought  alfo  to  ihovv',.  of  what  advantage  the  me- 
diation of  Chrifc  is  to  thole;  who  fulFer  in  hell  for  ages  of 
acres  ;  and  how  the  hops  and  the  p?-omifes  of  the  gofpel, 
and  hov/  prayhig  for  the  falvation  of  all  men,  can  be  re- 
conciled with  the  idea,  that  endlefs  punifliment  is  unjuft, 
and  finally,  that  it  is  unjuft,  that  God  Ihould  leave  a  linner 
to  perpetual  iln,  and  to  piiniih  him  perpetually  for  that  lin. 
It  fcems  to  be  but  an  acl  of  juiliee  to  Dr.  C.  to  repeat 
here,  what  I  noticed  before,  that  he  himfelf,  whether  con- 
fiftently  or  not,  does  acknowledge  the  juftice  of  endlefs  pu- 
nifhment :  as  in  thefe  words :  *^  If  the  next  ftate  is  a  ftate 
*•  of  punifliment,  not  intended  for  the  cure  of  the  pa— 
*^  ticnts  themfelves,  but  to  fat'isfy  the  juftice  of  Gody 
'^  and  give  Vv^arning  to  others,  'tis  impofiible  all  men  fhould 
'^  be  Hnall/  laved." f  This  is  a  plain  declaration,  that  a 
flate,  in  which"  all  falvation,  and  all  poiTibility  of  falvation, 
are  excluded,  no  more  than  fatisfies  juftice,  or  is  no  more 

than  juft. -The  fame  is  confelTed  in  thofe  many  palTages 

of  this  and  the  other  v/orks  of  Dr.  C.  wherein  he  has  po- 
litively  alTerted,  that  man  cannot  be  "  juftified  on  the  foot 
of  mere  law/'  of  ^M'igid  law"  &c.*  He  would  not  deny, 
that  the  lavv^  of  God  is  juft,  perfectly  juil.  If  therefore 
we  cannot  be  juftified  on  the  foot  of  the  divine  law,  Vv'e 
muft  on  that  foot  be  finally  condemned,  and  confequently 
muft  be  fi«ally  condemned  on  the  foot  of  juftice.  There- 
fore the  final  or  endlefs  condemnation  of  tlie  wicked  is  en- 
tirely juft.  The  juft  law  of  God  himfelf  condemns  them: 
and  if  that  law,  *'  mere  lav/,''  '^'  rigid  law,^'  be  executed, 
they  muft  be  condemned  to  an  endlefs  punifnment,  and  can- 
not poiPibly  be  juftified  or  faved.  So  long  therefore  as  the 
divine  law  is  juft,  fo  long,  according  to  the  conceffion  of  Dr. 
C.  the  endlefs  condemnation  and  mifery  of  the  wicked  are 
juft. — — There  feems  to  be  no  way"  to  avoid  this  confe- 
quence,  but  by  holding  that  the  curfe  of  the  law,  and  the 
puniihinent  Vv'hich  *'  fatisfies  juftice,"  are  annihilation, 
witii  refpeft  to  which  fentiment,  I  muft  refer  the  reader 
back  to  Chap.  V.  But  how  incoofiftent  it  is,  to  hold,  that 
endlefs  puniihment,  whether  confiftirg  in  annihilation,  cr 

II  lifer  7 

[-  1  .   II.  ^  .   34?  j->  "-xZy  ^"'-' 


iiS  The  Ji'Jl'ice  of  endlefs  Piin'ijl:ment 

mifery,  is  no  more  than  fatisfacftory  to  juftlce  ;  and  at  the 
fame  time  to  hold,  that  the  wicked  in  temporary  pains  in 
hell^  fuffer  according  to  their  dei'erts,  and  endure  the  whole 
penahy  of  the  law,  cannot  efcape  the  notice  of  any  atten- 
tive reader.^ — Or  will  it  be  faid,  that  the  Doftor  held  a 
commutation  of  punifhmenr  ?  that  endlefs  annihilation  is 
cnmmiited  iov  temjjorary  mifery  ?  If  fo,  then  temporary  mi- 
fery is  the  curfe  of  the  divine  law  now  inflitled  in  commu- 
tation for  endlefs  annihilation  ;  and  onr  author  was  entire- 
ly miilaken  in  a  doctrine  abundantly  taught  in  all  his  wri-- 
tings,  that,  ''bylaw,"  ''mere  law,'^  "rigid  law,"  no 
man  can  be  juflified  or  faved. 

As  a  corollary  from  the  whole  of  the  preceding  reafon- 
ing  concerning  thejuftice  of  endlefs  puniiliment,  may  I  not 
fafely  aiTert,  v;hat  was  mod  grievous  to  Dr.  C.  and  is  fo 
to  all  other  advocates  for  univerfcd  falvation  ;  that  sin  is 
AN  INFINITE  Evil  ?  if  every  Inmer  do,  on  account  of  lin, 
deferve  an  endlefs  punifnment,  fin  is  an  mfinite  evil  ;  that 
is  all  that  is  meant  by  the  infinite  evil  of  fm. —There- 
fore if  any  man  deny  the  infinite  evil  of  fm,  let  him  prove, 
that  it  does  not  deferve  an  endlefs  puniihment,  and  let  him 
anfwer  the  preceding  reafoning  to  evince  the  juflice  of  end- 
lefs punifhment.* 

Perhaps  fom.e  may  object,  that  fuppofing  fin  do  deferve 
aTi  endlefs  puniflmient,  when  it  is  not  repented  of;  yet  how 
can  it  deferve  fo  great  a  puniihment,  when  it  is  renounced 
in  real  repentance.— — But  if  repentance  make  atonement 
for  fin  ;  if  it  fatisfy  the  broken  law  of  God ;  if  it  repair  the 
damage  done  to  fociety  by  fin  ;  or  if  it  fo  far  atone,  that 
the  good  of  the  univerfe,  com.prehending  the  glory  of  the 
deity,  though  it  before  required,  that  fin  iliould  be  punifh- 
ed  with  endlefs  puniihment,  now  requires  that  it  be  punifh- 
cd  with  a  temporary  punifhment  only  ;  tlien  as  repentance 
is  a  fatisfaclicn  made  by  the  finner  himfelf,  and  makes  a 
part  of  his  perfonal  charader,  lin  repented  of,  does  indeed 
not  deferve  endlefs  puniihment,  otherwife  it  does.  And 
if  repentance  do  make  the  fatisfaclicn  for  fin  which  has  been 

deicribed 
*  In  this  chapter  it  luas  often  ijTore  convenient  for  me,  on 
fever al  accounts y  to  ufe  the  expreffion  endlefs  puniiliment, 
//'^/2 //;.?/ 0/ endlefs  mifery.  Still  the  reader  luiil  perceive, 
that  the  latter  is  my  meaning.  Thereafons  had  b  sen  given  in  the 
preceding  chapter ,  why  the  endlefs  pimfomcnt  of  th^  damned 
cannot  be  annihilation,       ^ 


ton fi fling  in  M'lfery*  42^ 

clefcribed,  then  the  fatisfacllon  or  atonement  of  Chrlft  is  in 
vain,  fince  repentance  would  have  anfwered  the  purpofe 
without  the  death  and  atonement  of  Chrift.  There  was 
no  need  that  fmners  be  redeemed  by  Chrift,  or  as  Dr.  C. 
fays,  that  he  fliould  be  ''  the  perfon  upon  ivhofs  accounty^ 
and  that  '*  his  obedience  and  death  fhould  be  the  ground 
*'  or  reafon  upon  which  happinefs  fhould  be  attainable  by 
**  any  of  the  race  of  Adam. '^  They  might  have  redeem- 
ed themfelves,  and  by  repentance  have  made  a  full  fatis- 
faclion  or  atonement  for  their  own  fms,  and  thus  might 
have  been  faved  07t  their  own  account ^y  and  on  the  ground  or 

reafon  of  their  repentance, But  if  on  the   other  hand  it 

be  granted,  that  repentance  does  not  make  atonement  or 
fatisfaclion  for  lin,  and  it  be  juft  to  puniili  a  fmner  without 
end,  provided  he  do  not  repent;  it  is  jufi  to  inflid  the 
fame  puniihment,  though  he  do  repent. 

Th  I  s  chapter  fliall  be  clofed  with  a  remark  on  a  pafTage 
before  quoted  from  Dr.  C*  in  which  he  fays,  that  the  dif- 
ference in  the  degree  of  the  pain  of  the  damned  will  fcarce 
be  thought  worthy  to  be  brought  into  the    account,   when 

the  circumftance  ofendlefs  duration,  is  annexed  to  it.- 

If  the  different  degrees  of  the  mifery  of  the  damned  be  un- 
worthy of  notice,  and  do  not  fufficiently  diilinguifli  them  ac- 
cording to  their  feveral  degrees  of  demerit ;  then  the  dif- 
ferent degrees  in  the  happinefs  of  the  faints  in  heaven  do 
not  fufficiently  diftinguifii  them,  according  to  their  charac- 
ters. Therefore  on  the  fame  principle  we  ought  to  deny 
the  endlefs  duration  of  the  happinefs  of  heaven,  as  well  as 
of  the  misery  of  hell  ;  and  to  fay,  that  the  difference  in 
the  degree  of  happinefs  of  the  bleifed  in  heaven,  will  fcarce 
be  thought  worthy  to  be  brought  into  the  account,  when 
the  circumflahce  of  endlefs  duration  is  annexed  to  it  ;  that 
if  the  happinefs  of  heaven  be  of  endlefs  duration,  the  hap- 
pinefs of  all  the  inhabitants  of  that  world  will  be  equal, 
which  is  inconfiftent  with  the  declarations  of  fcripture,  that 
all  fnall  be  rewarded  according  to  their  works  ;  and  that 
therefore  the  dodrine  of  the  endlefs  happinefs  of   heaven 

is  not  true. But  the  falfity  of  this  conclufion  is  evident 

to  all  :  and  equally  falfe  is  theconcluiion  from  the  like  pre- 
mifes,  that  the  puniihment  of  the  damned  is  not  endlefs. 


V*      XJl. 
P.    309. 


"  A  P. 


130  /tnoiher  view  ofthf 


C    H    A    P.      VII. 

Containing  another  view  of  the  queflhn  concerning  the  JuJlxcC 
of  endlefs  Ptmifhment, 

IN  the  preceding  chapter,  the  queftion  concerning  the  juf- 
tice  of  endlefs  puniihment  was  coniidered  in  the  hght  in 
which  it  is  flated  by  Dr.  C.  There  is  another  view  of  the 
ianie  queftion,  which  is  not  indeed  exhibited  in  his  book,but  is 
much  talked  of  by  fome  who  in  general  embrace  his  fcheme. 
It  is  this  ;  Whatev^er  the  general  good  requires,  is  juft : 
Whatever  is  not  fubfervient  to  the  general  good,  is  unjufl. 
Now  as  the  endlefs  puniihment  of  the  wicked  is,  in  their 
opinion,  not  fubfervient  but  hurtful  to  the  general  good, 
it  is,  fay  they,  unjuit.  The  queftion  thus  ftated  feems  to 
be  nothing  more  than  a  difpute  concerning  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  word  juftice*  It  reduces  all  juftice  to  the 
third  fenfe  of  juftice  as  explained  above,*  and  perfectly 
confounds  juftice  with  goodnefs  as  it  refpedls  the  general 
fyftem.  Therefore  the  queftion  which  comes  up  to  view, 
according  to  the  fenfe  of  juftice  now  propofed,  is  the  very 
fame  with  this.  Whether  the  endlefs  punifhment  of  the 
wicked  be  coniiftent  with  the  general  good  of  the  univerfe, 
or  with  divine  goodnefs  ;  which  Ihall  be  coniidered  at  large 
in  the  next  chapter,  and  needs  not  be  anticipated  here. 
However  it  may  be  proper  to  point  out'  the  impropriety 
and  abfurd  confequences  of  this  ufe  of  the  word  jufllce. 

It  was  doubtlefs  fubfervient  to  the  general  good,  that 
our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  was  crucified  by  wicked  hands,  and 
therefore  in  the  fenfe  of  juftice  now  under  confideration, 
his  crucifixion  was  juft  ;  they  v/ho  perpetrated  it,  perform- 
ed an  ad:  of  juftice.  Yet  will  any  man  pretend,  that  our  bleffed 
Lord  was  not  injurioufly  treated  by  his  wicked  crucifiers  ? 
If  they  committed  no  injury  to  our  Lord,  wherein  did  the 
wickednefs  of  this  aftion  confift  ? — The  truth  is,  the  cru- 
cifixion of  Chrift  was  no  injury  to  the  univerfe,  but  an  in- 
eftimable  benefit :  yet  it  was  the  higheft  injury  that  could 
be  done  him  perlbnally. 

Every  ^nftance  of  murder  is  doubtlefs  made  by  the  over- 
ruling hand  of  divine  providence,  fubfervient  to  the   ge- 
neral good  and  the  divine  glory.     But  does  a  man  murder- 
*'  P.  80,   Sec.  ed 


Juji'ice  of  endltfs  PumP^meni,  131 

cd  fufFer  no  injury  ?  The  fame  may  be  faid  of  all  the 
aflaultS;,  thefts,  robberies,  murders  and  other  cringes  that 
have  ever  been  committed.  Though  they  will  in  the  con- 
fiimmation  of  all  things  be  overruled  to  fubferve  the  general 
good,  fo  that  the  univerfe  will  finally  fuffer  no  injury  by 
them;  yet  very  great  perfonal  injury  may  be  done  by  them  to 
thofe  who  have  been  robbed,  murdered,  &:c.  Thefe  ob- 
fervations  may  fhov/  the  necelhty  of  diftinguifliing  between 
the  private  rights  of  individuals,  and  the  rights  of  the  uni- 
verfe, and  between  private,  perfonal  injuftice,  and  injuftice 
to  the  univerfe.  If  all  the  crimes  in  the  world,  becaufe 
they  will  be  finally  rendered  by  the  divine  hand  fubfer- 
vient  to  the  good  of  the  univerfe,  be  in  every  fenfe  en- 
tirely juft,  and  the  omiffion  of  them  v/ould  be  iinjuft  ; 
where  fhall  any  injuftice  be  found  ?  No  injuftice  is,  ever 
was,  or  can  polhbly  be  committed  by  any  being  in  this,  or 
any  other  world.  No  injuftice  can  be  committed,  till  fome 
thing  (hcili  be  done,  which  God  Ihall  not  finally  render  fub- 
fervient  to  his  ov.n  glory  and  the  good  of  the  intelledlual 
fyfleni. 

According  to  the  principle  now  under  confideration, 
it  would  not  be  juft,  that  any  man  fhould  efcape  any  cala- 
mity, which  he  does  in  fad  fuifer.  It  was  not  juft  that  I'aul 
fnould  efcape  ftcning  at  Lyftra,  or  that  John  ftiould  not  be 
banifiied  to  the  iftc  of  Patnios  :  and  whenever  it  is  fubfer- 
vient  to  the  public  good,  that  any  criminal,  a  murderer 
for  inftance,  Ihould  be  pardoned,  or  ftiould  be  fuiFered  to 
pafs  with  impunity  ;  it  is  not  juft  to  punifti  him ;  he  does 
not  deferre  punifhment  ;  Cain  did  not  deferve  death  for 
the  murder  of  his  brother,  nor  did  Joab,  during  the  life 
of  David,  deferv^e  death  for  the  two  murders  of  Abner 
and  Amafa,  both  better  men  than  himfelf.  And  if  he  did 
not  deferve  death,  what  did  he  deferve  \  It  appears  by  the 
hiftory  and  by  the  event,  that  it  was  not  fubfervient  to  the 
general  good,  that  he  ftiould,  during  the  life  of  David, 
be  pnnifhed  at  all.  Therefore  on  theprefent  fuppofition, 
he  deferved,  during  that  period,  no  puniihment  at  all  for 
thofe  murders.  If  fo,  then  during  the  fame  period,  at 
leaft,  there  was  no  fin,  no  moral  evil  in  thofe  murders  : 
for  (in  or  moral  evil    always    deferves  hatred   and  punifli- 

ment. But   afterwards    in  the  reign  of  Solomon,  the 

general  good  required  Joab  to  be  puniihed  with  death.     At 
That  time  therefore  he  deferred  death  for  thofe   murders; 

an  el 


132  Endlefs  Punijhynfnt  coytfi/fent  with 

and  thofe  fame  aclions  which  for  feveral  years  after  they 
were  perpetrated,  had  no  incral  evil  in  them,  grew,  by 
mere  length  of  time,  or  change  of  the  circumltances  of  the 

ftate,  to  be  very  great  moral  evils. See    then  to  what 

confequences  the  principle  now  under  confideration  will 
lead  us  !  It  muft  therefore  be  renounced  as  falfe,  or  as  a 
great  perverfionof  language. 

When  I  afTert  the  juftice  of  the  endlefs  punifhment  of 
the  wicked,  I  mean  that  it  is  juft  in  the  fame  fenle,  in 
which  it  v/as  jufl,  that  Cain  or  Joab  fliould  be  executed  as 
murderers:  i.  e.  it  is  correfpondent  to  their  perfonal  con- 
duct and  characters.  If  thofe  with  whom  I  am  now  dif- 
puting,  allow  that  the  endlefs  punifhment  of  the  wicked  is 
juft  in  this  fenfe,  they  allow  all  for  which  I  at  prefent  con- 
tend. If  they  deny,  that  it  is  juft  in  this  fenfe,  they  give 
up  their  favorite  principle,  and  difpute  againft  the  juftice 
*of  endlefs  punifliment,  not  merely  becaufe  it  would  be  in- 
confiftent  with  the  general  good,  butfor  the  fame  reafons 
as  thofe  for  which  Dr.  C.  difputed  againft  it :  and  they 
place  the  queftion  on  the  fame  footing,  on  which  it  has 
been  fo  largely  conlidered  in  the  preceding  chapters.  The 
execution  of  Cain  as  a  murderer  would  have  been  corref- 
pondent to  his  perfonal  condu6t,  and  therefore  would  have 
been  juft.  If  the  endlefs  punifhment  of  the  wicked  be  de- 
nied |o  be  jufl  in  this  fenfe,  it  is  denied  to  be  juft,  not  mere- 
ly becaufe  it  would  not  be  fubfervient  to  the  good  of  the 
univerfe  ;  but  becaufe  it  would  not  be  a  punifnment  corref- 
pondent to  their  perfonal  condu6t ;  inftead  of  this,  it  would 
exceed  the  demerit  of  that  condufl,  and  therefore  would 
rob  them  of  their  perfonal  rights. 


CHAP.     VIII. 

In  'which  It  Is  inquired y  whether  endlefs  puntJJj7nent  he  conjl- 
fient  with  the  divhie  goodnefs , 


''  J  ^KATthis  inquiry  is  very  important,  everyone  mufl 
JL  be  feiifible,  who  is  in  the  leair  acquainted  with  this 
ecntroverfy.  No  topic  is  lo  much  infilled  on  by  the  advo- 
cates for  univerfal  falvation  ;  en  no  fubjeci  do  they  throw 
©ut  fuch  abundant  and  fervciU  declaniaticn;  no  argument 

is 


th;  divine  Coodtiefs,  i^j 

ts  urged  with  fuch  an  air  of  triumph.     This  is  their  flrong 
hold,  in  which  they  feel  themfelves  perfeclly  fecure,   and' 
from  which  they  imagine  fuch  effeftual  fallies  may  be  made;"* 
as  will  drive  out  of  the  field  all  believers  in  endlefs  puniih-' 
ment.     Therefore  this  part  of  our  fubject  requires  parti- 
cular and  clofe  attention. 

I  PROPOSE  to  begin  with  dating  the  queftion, — then  to 
proceed  to  fome  general  obfervations  concerning  the  di- 
vine goodnefs  and  fome  conceflions  made  by  Dr.  C. — 
then  to  confider  Dr.  C's  arguments  from  the  divine  g-ood- 
nefs  ; — and  in  the  lad  place,  to  mention  fome  confider ations 
to  fliow,  that  the  endlefs  punifliment  of  fome  of  mankind, 
is  not  inconfiftent  with  the  divine  goodnefs. 

I.  It  is  a  matter  of  great  importance,  that  the  queftion. 
now  to  be  confidered  be  clearly  flated.  The  queftion  is. 
Whether  it  be  conliftent  with  the  divine  goodnefs,  that 
any  of  mankind  be  doomed  to  endlefs  punifhment  confifting 
in  mifery.  This  queftion  is  not  now  to  be  confidered  with 
any  reference  to  the  atonement  of  Chrift ;  or  the  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  univerfal  falvation,  drawn  from  the  di- 
vine goodnefs,  does  not  depend  at  all  on  the  atonem.ent. 
To  argue  that  goodnefs  requires  the  falvation  of  all  men 
now  fince  Chrift  has  made  a  fufficient  atonement,  irnphes 
that  without  the  atonement  no  fuch  argument  coiij^d  be 
urged .  To  argue  from  the  atonement  is  not  to  argu^jj&*om 
goodnefs  merely,  but  from  fatl,  from  the  gofpel,  Troin 
particular  texts  or  from  the  general  nature  of  the  p-ofpel. 
The  argiiment  is  this  ;  Chrift  hath  made  atonement  for 
all,  therefore  all  will  be  faved.  But  that  this  argument 
may  carry  conviction,  it  muft  firft  be  made  evident  that 
the  atonement  did  refpecl  all  mankind  ;  alfo  that  it  is  the 
intention  of  God,  to  apply  the  virtue  of  that  fufficient 
atonement,  totheaclual  falvaiion  of  all.  But  thefe  things 
can  be  proved  from  the  declarations  of  fcripture  only* 
Now  all  Dr.  C^s  arguments  from  fcripture  Ihall  be  confi- 
dered in  their  place  ;   but  this  is  not  their  place. 

The  queftion.  Whether  it  be  conliftent  with  divine 
goodnefs,  that  any  of  m.ankind  be  punifned  v/ithout  Qnd, 
means,  either,  Whether  it  be  confiftent  with  the  greateii 
poflible  exertion  or  difplay  of  goodnefs  in  the  Deity  ;  or 
Whether  it  be  confiftent  v/ith  goodnefs  in  general,  fo  that 
God  is  in  general  a  good  Being,  and  not  cruel  and  malicious , 
though  he  do  inflid:  endlefs  punifhment  on  fome  men. — — 

It 


134  Endhfs  Puri'Jhment  cwfflcnt  with 

It  is  not  an  article  of  my  fairh,  that  in  all  the  works  of 
creation  and  providence  taken  together,  God  difplays  in- 
deed goodnefs  in  general,  but  not  the  greateft  pofiiblc 
goodnefs.  This  diilincluon  is  made,  to  accommodate  the 
difcourfe,  if  pofTible,  to  the  meaning  of  Dr.  C.  As  he 
denies  that  God  has  adopted  the  beft  polTible  plan  of  the 
univerfe,  it  feems,  that  he  mull  have  diftinguiihcd  in  his 
own  mind,  between  the  goodnefs  accually  exerted  and  dif- 
played  by  the  Deity  in  ihe  prefent  fyiiem,  and  the  great- 
eft  poffible  difplay  of  goodnefs. 

If  the  former  of  thefe  be  intended  by  Dr.  C.  and  others, 
all  their  ftrong  and  frightful  declamations  on  this  fubje^l, 
come  to  this  only,  that  endlefs  punifhment  is  not  the  great- 
eft  polhble  difplay  of  the  divine  goodnefs  ;  or  that  the  fy- 
ftera  of  the  univerfe,  if  endlefs   puniihment    m.ake    a   part 

of  it,   is  not   the   wifeil    and  befl   poiTible.  But 

this  is  no  more  thnn  is  holden  by  Dr.  C.  and  it  is  prefu- 
med  by  other  advocates  in  general  for  univerfalfalvation. 
Dr.  C.  abundantly  holds,  as  v/e  fiiall  fee  preiently,  that 
the  prefent  fyftem  of  the  univerfe,  according  to  his  own 
view  of  it,  without  endlefs  punilhment,  is  not  the  wifeft  and 
beft  poifible.  It  is  therefore  perfefl  abfurdity  in  him,  to 
object,  on  this  ground,  to  endlefs  punithment. 

But  it  is  manifeft,  by  the  veheingnt  and  pathetic  excla- 
mations of  Dr.  C.  en  thisfubjet^,  that  he  aimed  at  fome- 
.^-thing'more  than  this.  It  is  manifeil  that  he  fuppofed  and 
meant  to  reprefent,  that  if  the  doctrine  of  endlefs  punilh- 
ment be  true,  God  is  not  a  p-ood,  a  benevolent  beirio;,  but 
a  cruel,  malicious  one.  ?Ie  fays,*  that  the  deftrlne  of  end- 
lefs puniiliment  *'  gives  occafion  for  very  unworthy  re- 
**  flections  on  the  Deity  :"  That  in  view  of  that  doftrinc 
**  t  an  horror  of  darknefs  remains,  that  is  fadly  dillreiTmg 
*'  to  many  a  coniiderate  heart.''  Ke  quotes^  with  ap- 
probation thofe  v/ords  from  Mr.  Y/hifton  :  *^  If  the  com- 
**  mon  doclrine  were  certainly  true,  thejVy/zVc'ofGodmuft 

'*  inevitably  be  given  up,  and  much  more  his  fuercy. 

'^  This  do£i:rine  fappofes  him,'*  L^^^J  ^'  to  delight  in  r/^j^/- 
<*  /)',''  So  that  the  queftion  agitated  by  Dr.  C.  is  really, 
"VVhether,  if  God  infiicl  endlefs  punifliment  on  any  linner, 
i-t  be  not  an  ad  of  cruelty  and  injujftcc,  as  all  crutlty  is  in- 

tuilice. But  this  is  the  very  queftion,    which  has  been 

fo  largely  confidered  in  feveral  preceding  chapters,  and 
needs  not  to  be  reconfidered  here.     So  that  Dr.  C's  argu- 

-*  P,  8.     f  P,  14.    %  P.   356  ment* 


the  divtn:  Coodn^fs,  t  j^ 

ments  from  goodnefs  arc  mere  arguments  from  juftice; 
and  if  endlefs  punifhment  be  reconcileable  with  divine  juf- 
tice,  it  is  equally  reconcileable  with  divine  goodnefs,  in  tfie 
fenfe  in  which  he  argues  from  divine  goodnefs. 

If  after  all  it  be  infifted  on,  that  Dr.  C.  meant  to  con- 
fider  the  queftion,  or  that  the  queftion  ought  to  be  conli- 
dered,  in  the  firft  {ew^z  Itated  above,  viz.  Whether  endlefs 
punilhment  be  confiilent  with  the  moft  perfect  difplay  of 
goodnefs  ;  although  if  the  negative  of  this  queliion  v/ere 
granted,  Dr.  C.  could  not  confiftently  thence  draw  an  ar- 
g'jment  in  favor  of  univcrfal  falvation  ;  yet  it  may  be  pro- 
per to  confider  this  flate  of  the  queftion,  and  perhaps  fuf-» 
ficient  obfervations  upon  it  will  occur  in  the  fequel  of  this 
chapter. 

II.  I  a:m  to  make  fome  general  obfervations  concerning 
the  divine  goodnefs,  and  take  notice  of  fome  conccilions 
made  by  Dr.   C. 

The  goodnefs  of  God  is  that  glorious  attribute,  by  which 
he  is  difpofed  to  communicate  happinefs  to  his  creatures. 
This  divine  attribute  is  diftinguiHied  from  the  divine  juftice 
in  this  manner  :  the  divine  juftice  promotes  the  happinefs 
of  the  univerfal  fyftem,  im.plying  the  divine  glory,  by  treat- 
ing a  perfon  fbridily  according  to  his  own  character :  the 
divine  goodnefs  promotes  the  fame  important  object,  by 
treating  a  perfon  more  favorably  than  is  sccording  to  his 
own  character  or  conduct:  So  that  both  juftice  and  good- 
nefs may  and  always  do,  as  far  as  they  are  exercifed,  fub- 
ferve  the  happinefs  of  the  univerfal  fyftem,  including  the 
glory  of  rfie  Deity,  or  the  glory  of  the  Deity,  including  the 
happinefs  of  the  univerl'al  fyflem.  As  the  glory  of  God, 
and  the  greajte ft  happinefs  of  the  fyftem  of  the  univerfe, 
and  even  of  the  created  fyftem,  mutuallj'-  imply  each  other  ; 
whenever  I  mention  either  of  them,  I  wifn  to  be  under- 
ftood  to  include  in  my  meaning  the  other  alfo.  The  de- 
clarative or  the  exhibited  glory  of  God,  is  a  moft  perfect 
and  moft  happv  created  fyftem  ;  and  a  moft  perfect  and 
moft  happy  created  fyftem.  is  the  exhibited  glory  of  God  ; 
or  it  is  the  exhibition,  the  manifeftation  of  that  glory  ;  as 
a  pic1:ure  is  an  exhibition  of  the  man. 

TiiAT  iniinite  goodnefs  is  in  God,  and  is  effential  to  his 
nature,  is  granted  on  all  hands  :  Cod  is  lgvf.  This  at- 
tribute feeks  the  happinefs  of  creatures,  the  happinefs  of 
the  created    fyftem    in  general,  and    of  Qvery   individual 

creature 


,^3^  Endhfs  ^unijlomtnt  conjlfient  -wiih 

creature  in  particular,  lb  far  as  the  happinefs  of  that  indi- 
vidual is  not  inconliftent  with  the  happineis  of  the  fyftem, 
.or  with  happinefs  on  the  whole.     But  if  in    any  cafe,    the 
happinefs  of  an  individual  be  inconfiflent  with  the  happi- 
nefs of  the  fyflem,  or  with  the  happinefs  of  other  indivi- 
duals, fo  that  by  beftov/ing  happinefs  on  the  firfi;  fuppofed 
individual,   the  quantity  of  happinefs  on  the  whole  Ihall  be 
diminifhed  ;  in  this  cafe,   goodnefs,   the   divine   goodnefs, 
.,%yhich  is  perfeft  and  infinite,  v.'ill  not  confent  to   beftow 
happinefs  on  that  individual.     Indeed  to  beftow  happinefs 
in  iuch  a  cafe  would  be  no  inflance  of  goodnefs,  but  of  the 
,  want  of  goodnefs.     It  would  argue  a  dlfpolition  not  to  in- 
creafe  happinefs,  but  to  diminifn  and  deftroy  it. 

Therefoiie  that  Dr.  C.  iniglit  prove,  that  the  endlefs 
puniiliment  of  any  fmner  is  inconfiftent  v.'ith  the  goodnefs 
of  God,  he  fliould  h'ave  fliown,  that  the  fum  total  of  hap- 
pinefs enjoyed  in  the  intelle6lual  fyftem  will  be  greater  if 
all  be  faved,  than  it  will  be  if  any  fuffer  an  endlefs  punifli- 
ment.  To  ihow  that  God  by  his  infinite  goodnefs  will  be 
excited  to  feek  and  to  fecure  the  greateft  happinefs  of  the 
fyjtem^  determines  nothing.  This  is  no  more  than  is  grant- 
ed by  the  believers  in  endlefs  puniiliment.  It  is  imperti. 
nent  therefore  to  fpend  time  on  this.  But  the  great  quef- 
tion  is,  Does  the  greateft  happinefs  of  the  fyftem  require 
the  final  happinefs  of  every  finner  ?  If  Dr.  C,  have  not 
Ihown  that  it  does,  his  argument  from  divine  goodnefs  is 
entirely  inconcluiive. 

Instead  of  fhowing,  that  the  divine, goodnefs  or  the 
greateft  happinefs  of  the  general  fyftem,  requires  the  final 
happinefs  of  every  individual;  Dr.  C.  has  abundantly 
Ihown  the  contrary.  In  his  book  on  the  Benevolence  of  the 
Deity  *  he  expreffes  himfelf  thus  ;  ^'  It  would  be  injuri- 
*'  ous  to  the  Deity  to  complain  of  him  foi'  want  of  goodnefs 
*'  merely  becaufe  the  manifeftation  of  it  to  our  particular 
''  fyftem,  confidered  (ingly  and  apart  from  the  reft,  is  not 

'*   fo  great  as  w^-  may  imagine  it  could  be. No  more 

*'  happinefs  is  required  for  our  fyftem,  even  from  mfinitely 
"  perfe^  henevolencey  than  is  proper  for  a  part  of  fome 
**  great  rohole.-^ — We  ought  not  to  coniider  the  difplays 
'^  of  divine  benevolence,  as  they  affedl:  individual  beings 
'^  only,  but  as  they  relate  to  the  ^-avticwl^Y  fyflem  of  which 

'<  they  are  parts. The  divine  benevolence  is  to  be  efii- 

*<  mated  from  its  amount  to  this  ivhole,  and  not  its   corfii- 
*P.  36,  &c,  ''  tuent 


the  d'lv'tns  Goodnefs.  737 

*^  iiient  parts  feparately  confidered. The  only  fair  way 

*^  of  judging  of  the  divine  benevolence  with  refpecl  to 
^^  our  world,  is  to  confider  it  not  as  difplayed  to  Jeparate 
<^  individuals y  but  to  the  whohfyftem,  and  to  thefe  as   its 

conitituent  parts.'' '-   f  No  more  good  i>  to  be  ex- 

pscted  from  the  Deity  v/ith  refpecl:  to  any  [pedes  ot  be- 
ings, or  any  indivinuals  in  thefe  fpecies,  than  is  reafon- 
ably  conriiient  vvith  the  good  of  the  whole  of  which  they 

''  are  parts.'' -'■    t  It    is  tru:.',   that  dedruclion  of  life 

*^  will  follov/,  if  foine  animals  are  food  to  others.  But  it 
"  rnay  be  true  alfo,  that  there  would  not  have  been  fp 
^•'  much  life,   and  confcquently  happinefs,  in  the  creation, 

*'•  had  it  not  been  for  this  expedient." ^^    ii  As  we  are 

'"'  only  one  of  the  numerous  orders  which  conffituce  a  ge- 
'^  neral  fyftem,  this  quite  alters  the  cafe,  making  thofe 
*•  capacities  only  an  evidence  of  wife  and  reafonable  bene- 
*'  volence,  which  are  fitted  for  a  particular  part  fuilaining 

'^  fuch  a  place  in  the  conffitution  of  ihis  zvhok.^' ''  *  I 

'^  proceed  to  ihovv  wherein  the  unhappinefs  that  is  con- 
''  necled  in  nature,  or  by  pofitive  infliclion  of  the  Deity, 
'^  with  the  mifufe  of  moral  powers,  is  fubfervient  to  tl^e 
'^  general  good  of  the  rational  creation,  which  is  hereby 
'•  more  effsclually  promoted,  than  it  would  have  been,  if 
'^  free  agents  might  have  acted  wrong  v/ith  impunity." — 
*^  nil  For  if  they"  [future  puniliiments]  ^^  are  confidered — 
^'  under  the  notion  of  a  needful  moral  mean  intended  to 
*^  promote,  upon  the  whole,  more  good  in  the  tntelliga^t  ere- 
*^  ation,  than  might  otherwife  be  reafonably  expelled  ; 
'•  thev  are  fo  far  from  beincr  the  efFect  of  ill  will,  that 
*^  they  really  fpring  from  benevolence  and  are  a  part  of  it. 

By  thefe  quotations" it  appears  with  fufiicient  clearnefs, 
that  it  vyas  Dr.  C's  opinion,  that  there  are  defeds,  miferies 
and  puniihments  of  individual  creatures,  v/hich  are  coniif- 
tentwith  the  good  of  the  fyilem,  and  are  therefore  confif- 
tent  with  the  divine  p-oodnefs  :  and  that  the  divine  good- 
nefs  does  not  feek  the  happinefs  of  any  individual  any  fur- 
ther, than  the  happinefs  of  that  individual  is  fubfervient  to 
the  happinefs  of  the  fyftera,  or  to  the  increafe  of  happinefs 
on  the  whole.  Therefore  Dr.  C.  fuppofes  the  miferies  of 
men  in  this  life,  and  even  the  puniilments  of  the  future 
world,  are  not  inconfiftent  wiih  the  divine  goodnefs,    be- 

caufe  they  are  fubfervient  to  the  good  of  the  iyftem. 

T  Now 

t  P.  5S.  X  P.  84.  !!  P.  107.  =^  P.  237.  IHI  p.  242. 


I^S  Bnilcfs  V unijl:ment  conpjjent  with 

Now  the  advocates  for  endlefs  punifhment  believe  the  Tamtf 
concerning  the  endlefs  punifhment  of  thofe  who  die  impe* 
nitent;  and  for  him  to  fuppofe  without  proof,  that  this  pu- 
niihment  is  not  confident  v/ith  the  greateft  good  and  hap- 
pinefs  of  the  fyftem,  is  but  begging  the  queftion. 

What  is  the  abfurdity  of  fuppofmg,  that  the  endlefs  pu- 
niminent  of  foine  Tinners  may  be  fubfervient  to  the  good  of 
the  fyllem  ?  Why  may  not  the  general  good  be  promoted, 
as  well  by  endlefs  mifery,  as  by  the  miferies  of  this  life  ? 
And  why  may  we  not  be  allowed  to  account  for  endlefs 
mifery  in  the  fame  Vvay,  that  Dr.  C.  accounts  for  the  mi- 
feries of  this  life,  or  for  the  temporary  mifery  which  he  al- 
lows to  be  in  hell  ?  It  is  now  fuppofe d  to  have  been  proved, 
that  endlefs  punilhment  is  juft.  If  then  the  general  good 
may  be  promoted  by  the  tortures  of  the  ftone  endured  for 
a  year,  by  a  m.an  who  deferves  them,  why  may  not  the  ge- 
neral good  be  promoted  by  the  fame  tortures,  continued 
without  end,  provided  the  man  deferves  fuch  a  continuance 
of  them?  If  we  v/ere  to  judge  a  priori,  we  fliould  probably 
decide  agfjuil  mifery  in  either  cafe.  But  fa6t  fliows  that 
temporary  miferies  are  confiftent  with  the  goodnefs  of  God, 
or  with  the  general  good  :  and  wAvy  may  not  endlefs  mile- 
ry  be  fo  too,  provided  it  be  juft? 

If  it  be  aiferted,  that  the  endlefs  punifhment  of  a  fmner 
v/ho  deferves  fuch  punilhrniCnt,  is  fo  great  an  evil,  that  it 
cannot  be  compcnfated  by  any  good,  v/hich  can  arife  from 
it  to  the  fyftem ;  I  v/iih  to  have  a  reafon  given  for  this  af- 
fertion.  It  is  granted  that  the  good  accruing  to  the  fyftem 
overbalances  the  temporary  miferies  oflinners  both  here 
and  hereafter.  And  is  the  endlefs  mifery  of  an  individu- 
al, though  juftiy  deferved,  fo  great  an  evil,  that  it  cannot 
be  overbalanced, by  any  endlefs  good,  which  may  thence 
accrue  to  the  fyflem  ?  Endlefs  m.ifery  is  doubtlefs  an  infi- 
nite evil ;  fo  is  the  endlefs  good  thence  arifmg,  an  infinite 
good. 

Non  does  it  appear,  but  thnt  all  the  good  ends,  which 
are  anfwered  by  the  temporary  punilhment  of  the  damned, 
may  be  continued  to  be  anfwered  by  their  continual  and 
endlefs  punilhment,  if  it  be  juft,  God  may  continue  to 
difplay  his  juftice,  his  holinefs,  his  hatred  of  fm,  his  love 
of  righteoulhefs,  and  of  the  general  good,  by  oppoling  and 
punifhing  thofe  v/lio  are  obiiinately  fet  in  the  practice  of 
fm,  and  in  the  oppofition  of  righteoufntfs^  and  of  the  ge- 
neral 


the  divine  Goodnefs,  i^^ 

neral  good.  In  the  fame  way  he  may  eftablifh  his  audio-* 
rity,  manifefl  the  evil  of  fin,  reilrain  others  from  it,  and  by 
a  contraft  of  the  circumftances  of  the  faved  and  damned, 
increafe  the  gratitude  and  happinefs  of  the  former,  as  well 
as  increafe  their  happinefs  by  the  view  of  tlie  divine  holi- 
iiefs,  and  regard  to  the  general  good,  manifefted  in  the  pu- 
ni/liment  of  the  obftinate  enemies  of  holinefs  and  of  the  gene- 
ral good  ;  and  by  a  view  of  divine  grace  in  their  own  fal- 
vation,  and  the  falvation  of  all  who  ihall  be  faved.  Thefe 
are  the  principal  public  ends  to  be  anfwercd  by  temporary 
vindidive  punifliment,  on  fuppolition  that  future  punifh- 
ment  is  temporary  ;  and  if  any  other  good  end  to  the  univerfe 
ihall  be  anfwered  by  it^  in  the  opinion  of  thofe  who  believe 
it,  let  it  be  mentioned,  that  by  a  thorough  enquiry  we  may 
fee  whether  the  fame  good  end  may  not  be  anfwered  by 
continual  and  endlefs  puniiliment. 

Another  quertion  concerning  the  divine  goodnefs  pro- 
per to  be  conlidered  here,  is,  whether  \x.fecure  and  make 
certain  the  final  happinefs  of  every  man  ;  or  whether  it  be 
fatisfied  with  this,  that  opportunity  and  means  are  afford- 
ed to  every  man  to  obtain  happinefs,   if  he  will  feize  the 

opportunity  and  ufe  the  means. Concerning   this  alfo. 

Dr.  C.  hath  fu/ficiently  exprefled  his  fentiments  ;  as  in 
the  folio wino;  palTages  ;  ^^  *  V/e  muft  not  jadge  of  the  be- 
*^  nevolence  of  the  Deity  merely  from  the  acinal  good  we 
*'  {eeproducedj  butihould  likewife  take  into  conQderation 
^'  the  tendency  of  tliofe  general  laws  conformably  to  \ 
'^  which  it  is  produced.  Becaufe  the  tendency  of  thofe 
*'  lavvs  may  be  obftracled,  and  lefs  good  a<iiually  take 
''  place ^  than  they  were  naturally  ftted  to  produce.  In 
'^  which  cafe,  it  is  no  argument  of  want  of  goodnefs  in 
'^  the.  Deity,  that  no  more  good  was  communicated ; 
^^  though  it  may  be  of  folly  in  the  creatures.'' — ^^  f  It  is 
(^  impoihble  we  fhould  judge  fairly  of  the  Creator's  bene- 
''  volence,  from  a  vievv-  only  of  our  vi^orld,  under  itspre- 
*^  fent  aclaal  enjoyments.  But  if  we  would  form  right 
'*  fentiments  of  it,  we  muft  confider  the  tendency  of  the 
*'  divine  fcheme  of  operation,  and  what  the  ilate  of  the 
^'  world  would  have  been,  if  the  rational  and  moral  beings 
^'  in  it  had  acted  up  to  the  laws  of  their  nature  and  oiven 

*''  them  full  fcope  for  the  produdion  of  good." '*  X  4.11 

<*  the  good  fuitable  l\3r  fuch  a  f\{lem  as  this,  is  apparently 

the 

*  Bene\',  of  the  Deity;  p.  60.   f  lb,  p.  69.    %  p.  lb,  73. 


140  Endlefs  puntfJmient  confijlent  "jjith 

"  the  tendency    of  nature  and  the  divine   adminiflratlon, 
'^   and  it  actually  prevails  fo  far  as  this  tendency  is  not  per- 
^^  verted  by  creatures  tbeinfelves. — tor  v/hich  he''  [God] 
^'  is  not  anfwcrable.'^     The  Deilor   exprefles   hinifelf  to 
the  fame  purport  in  many  otlier  pafiages  of  the  fame  book. 
It  is  inanifeit,  that  in  thefe  pafTages,  Dr.   C.   efleems 
it  a  fufiicient  vindication  of  the  divine  goodnefs,   that  God 
hath  eftabliflied  o-ood  laws,  huih  benevolentlv  conftituted 
the  nature  of  things  and  hath  given   opportunity  to  men  to 
fecure  to  themfelves  tlie  enjoyment  oC  p'ood  :  and  that  the 
divine  goodnefs  does  not  imply   that  every  individual  crea- 
ture fliall  actually   enjoy  complete  oood   or  happinefs.     Jf 
thefe  things  be  true,   then  no    argument  from  the  divine 
goodnefs  can  prove,   that  every  individual  of  mankind  will 
be  finally  happy  :     the    divine  goodnefs  though    complete 
and  infinite  does  not  fecure  a clual  happinefs  to  every  indi- 
vidual :   it  fecures  the  opportunity  and  means  only  of  hap- 
pinefs :   or  it  fecures  fucha  divine  fcheme  as  has  Tatendeticy 
to  the   happinefs  of  all,   and  would  avStually  prevail  to    the 
communication  of  happinefs  to  all,  if  it  were  not  perverted 
by  creatures  themfelves,  for  which  perverfion  God   is  not 
anfwerable. 

Now  that  fuch  a  divine  fcheme  as  this  is  aftually  adopt- 
ed, is  undoubted  truth,  and  may  be  granted  by  every  ad- 
vocate for  endlefs  punifliment.  Therefore  on  tlie  fame 
ground  on  which  Dr.  C.  vindicates  the  goodnefs  of  God, 
from  the  objeftions  which  arife  from  prefent  calamities, 
and  from  future  temporary  puniiliment  ^-may  the  fame 
goodnefs  be  vindicated  from  the  objections  which  are  raifed 
from  endlefs  punilhraent.  In  the  former  cafe  it  is  pleaded, 
that  God  is  infinitely  good,  though  creatures  fuffer  cala- 
mities here  and  deferved  punifliment  hereafter,  becaufe  he 
has  given  them  opportunity  to  obtain  happinefs,  and  has 
adopted  a  fcheme  of  operation  which  has  a  tendency  to 
good.  Juir  fo  God  is  infinitely  good,  though  feme  men 
fui^^r  deferved  endlefs  punifliment  ;  becaufe  he  has  given 
manivind  opportunity  to  obtain  eternal  life  and  falvatioh, 
and  has  adopted  a  fcheme  of  providence  and  of  grace, 
which  will  aftualiy  prevail  to  the  final  falvation  of  all, 
if  it  be  not  ncglecled  or  perverted  by  men  themfelves ;  for 
which  ni'glect  or  perverfion  God  is  not  anfwerable. 

It  is  alio  conceded  by  Dr.  C.*  that  **  none  of  tlie  fons 

"  of  Adam,  by  the  mere  exercife  of  their  natural  povv'ers, 

.*  12  Serm.  p.  zjo.  *■   ever 


the  divine  Coodncfs,  141 

*'  everyet  attained  to  a nerfeft  knowledge  of  this  rule'^  [the 
rule  of  man's  dut)'',  and  of  God's  conduct  in  rewarding  and 
puniihing.]  ''  Moft  certainly  they  are  unable,  after  all 
**  theirreafonings,  to  fa}-,  whatpuiiifiirnentasto /j/;f/f/,  or  de- 
^^  gree,  or  duration,  would  be  their  due,  in  cafe  of  fm." 
This  is  plainly  to  giv^e  up  all  arguments  againft  endiefs  pu- 
nifhment,  drawn  from  the  goodnefs  of  God,  or  from  any  o- 
ther  divine  perfection.  For  if  ^'  mofc  certainly  after  all 
'*'  our  reafonings"  from  the  divine  perfections  as  Vs^ell  as 
from  other  topics  of  reafon,  we  be  '^  unable  to  fay  v/haf  pu- 
^'  nilliment,  as  to  kind,  or  degree,  or  duration,  is  due'*ln  cafe 
^'  oflinj'^  then  ^^  mojr  certainly  yjq  are  unable  to  fay,'* 
but  that  an  endiefs  punilhment,  and  that  coniirting  in  mife- 
ry  too,  is  due,  and  is  necelTary  to  fecure  and  promote  the 
good  of  the  f3''rtem.  Therefore  to  have  been  confiftent, 
Dr.  C.  o'JiTht  never  to  have  pretended,  that  endiefs  niile- 
ry  is  not  reconcileable  with  divine  goodnefs. 

D?v.  C.  farther  grants,  that  it  may  be  neceflary,  that  the 
penalty  of  the  divine  lav/  be  inflicted,  and  that  the  inflidi- 
on  of  it  may  be  honorable  to  God,  and  ufeful  to  creatures  : 
yea,  he  grants,  that  the  full  penalty  of  the  lav/  will  aftual- 
ly  be  inflicled  on  fome  men.  "  ^-^  Perhaps  the  reafons  of 
'^  government  mJght  make  it  fit  and  proper,  and  therefore 
"  morally  neceiTary,  that  the  threatening,  which  God  has 
'^  denounced,  ihouM  be  executed.  Would  the  v/ifdom  of 
*^  the  fupreme  legidator  have  guarded  his  proliibition  v/itk 
^'  a  penalty  it  was  not  reafwable  and  juil  he  fhould  inflio:  ? 
''  And  might  not  the  infiidion  of  it,  vv^hen  incurred,  be  of 
^'  fervlce'  iig;nal  fervice,  to  the  honor  of  the  divine  autho- 
'^  rity,  and  to  fecure  the  obedience  of   tue    creature  m  all 

^^  after  timea?"-^ If  it  be  *^  fit  j?nd  proper,  and  morally 

'^  necelTary;  ^'  if  it  be  ^^  of  fip-nal  fervice  to  the  honor  of 
*^  the  divine  authority,  and  to  fecure  the  obedience  of 
^^  creatures,''  to  infii6t  the  penalty  of  the  divine  lav/  ; 
doubtlefs  the  infliclion  of  it  is  not  only  conllfLcnt  v/ith  the 
general  good,  but  lubfervient  to  it,  and  therefore  perfectly 
confiflent  )vith  the  divine  goodnefs.  It  is  not  '*  reaioaa- 
ble,"  that  God  ihould  imiid;  the  penalty  of  his  law,  unlefs 
the  infliction  be  confiftent  with  the  general  good,  and  fo 
with  the  divine  goodnefs.  Therefore  the  queilion  proj^o- 
fed  in  the  lafl  qiioiaiion  may  with  equal  truth  and  force  be 
propofed  a  little  diifirently,  thus^  Would    the  v/ifdom  of 

>-.  the 

*  5  DilTer.  p.  231. 


142  Endltfs  PumJJjmeni  confifient  with 

the  fuprcme  legiflator  have  guarded  his  prohibition  with  a 
penalty,  which  it  was  not  confiftent  with  the  general  gcod 
of  the  univerfe,  or  with  the  goodnefs  of  his  own  nature, 
that  he  fhould  in  any  one  inflance  inflict  ? Thus  it  ap- 
pears to  he  fully  granted,  that  divine  goodnefs  does  not  op- 
pofe  the  infliftion  of  the  penalty  of  the  divine  law,  but  re- 
quires it. Nay,  as  hath  been  hinted  above.  Dr.  C.  ex- 

preffly  afTerts,  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  will  be  iuiiided 
on  fome  men ;  that,  on  thofe  who  pafs  through  the  tor- 
ments of  hell,  the  divine  lav/  will  take  its  courie,   and  the 

threatened  penalty  will  be  fully  executed.* Now  what 

the  penalty  of  the  divine  lav/  is,  we  have  before  endeavour- 
ed to  fliow.  Therefore  if  ourreafoning  on  that  head  be  juft, 
it  follows  from  that  reafoning  and  from  Dr.  C'"s  conceiTions 
in  the  preceding  quotations  taken  together,  that  endlefs  pu- 
nifliment  is  not  only  reconcileable  v/ith  divine  goodnefs, 
but  is  abfolutel)^  required  by  it.  Would  divine  goodnefs 
both  denounce  and  actually  inflict  a  penalty,  which  that 
goodnefs  did  not  require,  and  which  was  not  even  reconcile- 
able  with  it  ? 

Dr.  C.  informs  us,f  that  ^'  Chrift  was  fent  into  the 
'*  world,  and  the  great  delign  he  Vv'as  fent  upon  was  to 
'^  make  ivny  for  the  v/isEjjV/?  and  holy  excrcife  of  mere}'' — 
*^  towards  ihe  linful  fons  of  Hjen.^'  It  feenis  then,  that 
if  it  had  not  been  for- the  mediation  of  Chriil,  there  would 
iiave  been  -no  way  for  the  exercife  of  mercy  towards  men, 
in  a  confiflency  not  with  juflice  and  holinel's  only,  but  with 
wifdom?  and  if  not  v/ith  wifdom,  not 'with  the  general 
good  :  for  wifdom  always  dictates  that  which  is  for  the  ge- 
neral grood.  And  if  it  would  noc  have  been  confulent 
with  the  general  good,  to  excrcife  mercy  tov/ards  dinners, 
without  the  mediation  of  Chrifl,  neither,would  it  have  been 
conliftent  with  the  divine  goodnefs,  for  that  and  that  only 
which  is  fubfervient  to  the  general  good,  is  an  objejcl  to 
the  divine  goodnefs.     In  this  fentimcnt  Dr.  C.   was    very 

full,  as  we  have  already  feen.-^- Therefore  without  the 

!Dediation  of  Cliriit,  divine  goodnefs  required,  tfiat  all  man- 
kind be  left  in  a  Hate  of  defpair  under  the  curie  of  tiie  lav»\ 
And  if  it  have  been  ihewn,  that  this  curfe  is  endlefs  mifery, 
it  follows,  that  divine  goodnefs,  required  that  all  manlund, 
if  it  had  not  been  for  tlie  mediation  of  Chriit;  fhould  fuller 
endlefs  miiery. 

III.  As 

'  P.  33^^-     t  3  ^i^-  P-  247. 


* 


the  divine  Coodnefs,  14^ 

III.  As  was  propofed,  Vv-e  now  proceed  to  Gonfider  Dr. 
C's  arguments  from  the  goodnefs  of  God,  to  prove  the 
falvation  of  all  men. If  fome  of  the  following  quotati- 
ons be  found  to  be  rather  pofitive  affertions  than  argu- 
ments ;  I  hope  the  fault  will  not  be  imputed  to  me,  provi- 
ded I  quote  thofe  paffages  which  contain  as  ftrong  argu- 
ments from  this  topic,  as  any  in  his  book. 

(c  %  jj,  jg  high  time,  that  fome  generally  received  doc- 
'^  trines  lliould  be  renounced,  and  others  embraced  in  their 
^'  room  that  are  more  honourable  to  the  Father  of  Mer- 
**  cies,  and  comfortable  to  the  creatures  whom  his  hands 
*'  have  formed.  I  doubt  not  it  has  been  a  perplexing  dif- 
**  ficulty  to  mofcperfons  (lam  fure  it  hasbeen  fuch  to  me) 
*^  how  to  reconcile  the  doccrine  which  dooms  fo  great  .1 
*^  number  of  the  human  race  to  eternal  flames,  with  the 
"  elTential,  abfolutely  perfect  goodnefs  of  the  Deity. — 
'^  And  perhaps  they  contain  ideas  utterly  irreconcileable 
*^  with  each  other.  To  be  fure,  their  ccnfiftency  has  ne- 
<<  ver  yet  been  fo  clearly  pointed  out,  but  that  a  horrour 
*^  of  darkneis  ftill  remains  that  is  fadly  diftrelling  to  many 
*^*  a  coniiderate  tender  heart.'' In  this  pafTage  it  is  im- 
plied, that  the  doctrine  of  endlefs  mifery  is  not  honourable 
to  the  Father  of  Mercies.     But  what  is  the  proof  of  this? 

If  there  be  any,  it  coniiilsin  thefefeveral  particulars • 

That  this  doctrine  is  uncomfortable  to  the  creatures  of 
God — That  it  has  been  a  perplexing  diiHculty  to  fome,  Dr. 
C.  thinks  to  moil",  and  •'  is  fure  it  has  been  fuch  to  him,'* 
to  reconcile  that  doctrine  with  the  o-oodnefs  of  God — That 
perhaps  th^y  are  irreconcileable — lliat  to  be  fure  (in  Dr. 
C^s  opinion)  they  never  have  been  fo  reconciled,  but  that 
a  horrour  of  darknefs  remains. 

If  thefe  be  arguments,  they  require  an  anfwer. — The 
firfi  is,   that  the  doctrine  of  endlefj  mifery  is  uncomfort- 
able, or  rather  not  i'o  comfortable  to  God's    creatures,  as 
fome  other  dodrines  :   therefore  it  is  not  honourable  to  the 

Father  of  Mercies. But  would  Dr.  C.   dare  to   fay, 

that  every  doctrine  is  diihonourablc  to  God,  which  is  not 
equally  comfortable  to  frnful  creatures,  as  fome  other  doc- 
trines ?  and  that  no  doitnne  is  confiftent  with  the  divine 
goodnefs,  but  il^^ofe  which  are  in  the  higheft  degree  com- 
fortable to  ^v.cW  creatures  ?  V/hat  then  will  follow  con- 
cernintr  his  doctrine  of  '•'   torment  for  3 res  of  ao;es?" — 

Or 

*  P.    14. 


l44  Endlefs  PuntJIfnient  conpflent  with 

Or  would  any  man  choofe  that  the  comparifon  be  dropped 
and  that  the  argument  be  exprelTed  thus  : — The  doftnne 
of  endlefs  mii'ery  is  uncomfortable  to  creatures,  therefore 
it  is diilioiiourable  to  God?  This  fbiil  confutes  the  do6lrine 
of  torment  for  ages  of  ages.  BeJ'.de,  if  the  meaning  be, 
that  it  is  uncomfortable  to  all  creatures,  it  is  a  millake. — 
To  thofe  Vv'ho  believe  it  to  be  a  iuftand  p-Iorious  exDreifion 
of  the  divine  hatred  of  lin,  ^.nd  a  neceffary  mean  of  vin- 
dicating the  juilice  of  God,  of  fupporting  the  dignity  of 
his  government  and  of  promoting  the  general  good  ;  it  is 
fo  far  from  being  uncomfortable,  that  it  is  necelTary  to  their 
comfort  ;  and  they  rejoice  in  it  for  the  iame  reafons,  that 
they  rejoice  in  the  advancement  of  the  general  rrood.  They 
rejoice  in  it  on  the  famiC  principles  of  benevolence  and  pie- 
ty, that  Br.  C.  rejoiced  in  the  profpect,  that  the  divine  law 
would  have  its  courfe,  and  the  full  threatened  penalty  be 
executed  on  fom.e  of  mankind. 

The  next  particular  of  the  above  Quotation  is,  that  the 
docl:rine  of  endlefs  mifery   has  been    perplexing  to  fome, 

or  to  moil  uiq-a,  and  to   be  fure    to  Dr.  C. Doubtlefs 

this  is  true  of  many  other  doftrines,  which  hov/ever  haVe 
been  beheved  both  by  Dr.  C.  and  by  other  ChriiHans  :  fuch 
as  the  perfect  rectitude,  goodnefs  and  impartiality  of  all  the 
difpenfations  of  divine  providence  :  the  ccnliilence  be- 
tween the  exifrence  of  fm  in  the  v.'orld  and  the  infinite 
wifdom,  power,  holinefs  and  goodnefs  of  God  :  the  iinal 
fubierviency  of  all  events  to  the  divine  glory  and  the  ge- 
neral good  of  the  fyftem,  ^rc.  Therefore,  if  the  argu- 
ment prove  anything,  it  proves  too  much. 

The  third  particular  is,  Perhaps  endlefs  mifery  is  not 
reconcileable  with  the  gccdnefs  of  the  Deity.— — -Anfwer^ 
Perhaps  it  is  reconcileable  with  that  divine  attribute. 

The  laft  particular  is,  To  be  fure  (in  Dr.  C's  opinion) 
they  never  have  been  fo  reconciled,  but  that   a  horrour  of 

darknefs  remains  with  refpecl  to  the  f'ubjedl. Anfwer, 

In  the  opinion  of  many  other  men,  they  have  often  been 
fo  reconciled,  that  there  v/as  no  reafon,  why  a  horrour  of 
darknefs  in  viev/  of  the  fubje6l  ihould  remain  in  the  mind 
of  any  man.  They  experience  no  m^ore  horrour  of  dark- 
nefs in  the  idea,  that  God  inflicls  that  endlefs  punidiment 
which  is  perfev:Hy  juil:;  is  abfolutcly  neceiTary  to  fatisfy  di- 
vine julHce,  and  vindicate  the  dch'Scd.  authority,  govern- 
ment and  grace  of  God^  and  is  fubfervient  to  the  glory  of 

God 


Ihe  dlvhtt  Goodnefs,  l^i 

Cod  and  the  general  good  ;  than  in  the  idea  of  mofl  other 
cloftrines  of  the  gofpel. 

But  let  us   proceed    to   another  palTage  of  Dr.  C. 

^Multitudes  are  taken  off  before  they  have  had  opportu- 
nity to  make  themfelves  hardened  abandoned  fmners  s 
and  fo  far  as  we  are  able  to  judge,  had  they  been  con- 
tinued in  life,  they  might  have  been  formed  to  a  virtu- 
ous temper  of  mind,  by  a  fuitable  mixture  of  correction, 
inftrudion,  and  the  like.  And  can  it  be  fuppofed  with 
refpect  to  fuch,  that  an  infinitely  benevolent  God,  with- 
out any  other  trial,  in  order  to  efFeft  their  reformation^ 
will  confign  them  over  to  endlel's  and  irreverlible  tor- 
ment ?  Would  this  be  to  condu6l  himfelf  like  a  father 
on  earth  ?  Let  the  heart  of  a  father  fpeak  on  this  occa- 
fion.  Nay,  it  does  not  appear,  that  any  finners  are  fo 
incorrigible  in  wickednefs,  as  to  be  beyond  recovery  by 
ftiJl  further  methods  within  the  reach  of  infinite  power  : 
And  if  the  infinitely  wife  God  can,  in  any  wife  methods, 
recover  them,  even  in  any  other  ftate  of  trial,  may  we 
not  argue  from  his  infinite  benevolence,  that  he  will?'* 
The  firft  branch  of  this  aro-ument  is,  that  fome  die  be- 
fore  they  become  incorrigible  ;  therefore  tlie  fatherly  good- 
nefs of  God  will  give  them  another  trial. But  did  Dr. 

C.  know  when  fnmers  become  incorrigible,  and  when  not? 
Does  any  man  know  how  long  a  perfon  muft  live  in  fm,  to 
arrive  at  that  flate  ?  If  not,  what  right  has  any  man  to 
fay,  that  any  linners  die,  before  God  as  perfeftly  knows 
them  to  be  incorrigible,  as  if  they  had  lived  in  fm  ever  fo 

long? jBelide,  were  fmners  to  live  in  fm  ever  fo  long^ 

ftiil  this  objedion  might  be  made  ;  and  Dr.  C.  has  in  fa'6t 
made  it,  not  only  with  regard  to  thofe  who  die  premature- 
ly, but  with  regard  to  allimners.  He  fays,  **  It  does  not 
appear,' that  ^«y  (inners  are  fo  incorrigible,  as  to  be  be- 
yond recovery  by  ftill  further  methods.''  That  is,  if  it  do 
not  appear,  that  fmners  are  m  this  world  beyond  recovery 
by  ftill  further  methods  to  be  ufed  for  their  recovery,  we 
are  to  believe  from  God's  infmite  benevolence,  that  thofe 
further  methods  will  be  ufed  for  their  recovery.  But 
fhould  a  linner  go  through  the  torments  of  hell,  and  of  teri 
other  fucceeding  ftates  of  trial,  it  is  to  be  prefumed,  that 
Dr.  C.  would  not  fay,  but  that  poifibly  he  might  be  reco- 
Yered  by  fome  further  methods  within  the  power  of  God 

a  to 

*  P.  321. 


i.46  Endkfs  Pun'ijljment  conjlftent  with 

to  ufe,  if  indeed  God  fhould  fee  caufe  to  life  thofe  furtliar 
methods.  The  ground  of  this  argument  is,  that  goodnefs 
requires,  that  God  ufe  means  for  the  recovery  of  fmners,  as 
long  as  it  is  in  the  power  of  God  to  ufe  any  further  means 
to  that  end.  But  this  as  much  needs  to  be  proved  as  any 
one  propofition  advanced  by  Dr.  C. 

The  next  branch  of  this  arirument  is,  that  it  would  not 
be  afling  like  a  father  on  earth,  if  God  were  to  confign 
fmners  to  endlefs  torment. — And  is  it  ading  like  a  father 
on  earth,  to  doom  men  to  the  feccnd  death,  the  lake  which 
burneth  vvith  €re  and  brimilone,  and  there  torment  them 
for  ages  of  ages  ?  Let  the  heart  of  a  father  on  earth 
fpeak  and  declare  whether  it  would  be  agreeable  to  him, 
to  inflidl  on  his  children  thefe  extreme  and  long  continued 
tortures  ?  or  even  many  of  the  temporal  calamities  which 
God  inflicts  on  mankind  5  fuch  as  poverty,  ihame,  a  feeble 
fickly  habit,  extreme  pain  and  diilrefs,  lofs  of  reafon,  and 
death  attended  with  the  moil  afilicling  circumftances  ? 
Would  a  father  on  earth  choofe  to  plunge  his  children  in 
the  ocean,  and  leave  them  to  the  mercy  of  the  waves  ? 
Would  he  fet  his  houfe  on  fire,  while  they  were  buried  in 

foft  flumbers,  and  confume  them  in  the  flames  ? Such 

declamatory  applications  to  the  pafiions  are  a  two-edged, 
fword  which  will  wound  Dr.  C's  fcheme,  as  certainly  as 
that  of  his  opponents.  But  this  controverfy  is  not  to  be 
fettled  by  an  application  to  the  paffions. 

The  lailpart  of  the  above  quotation  defl;roys  the  whole. 
It  is  this  ;  It  does  not  appear  that  any  iinners  are  fo  incor- 
rigible, as  to  be  beyond  recovery  by  fl:iU  further  methods 
within  the  reach  of  infinite  wifdom.  If  God  have  revealed 
that  no  finners  Ihall  be  recovered  after  this  life,  it  is  doubt- 
lefs  a  wdfe  confl:itution  that  this  hfe  is  the  only  ftate  of  pro- 
bation. Therefore  it  is  not  within  the  reach  of  infinite 
wifdom,  to  ule  any  further  m.eans  after  this  life  for  the  re- 
covery of  thofe  who  are  incorrigible  here.  So  that  this 
whole  paragraph  is  a  mere  begging  of  the  queftion  :  it 
takes  for  granted,  that  this  life  is  not  the  only  flate  of  pro- 
bation, or  that  the  endlefs  punifliment  of  all  who  die  im.— 
penitent  is  not  a  doctrine  of  divine  revelation. 

Dii.  C.  elfev/here*  argues  univerfal  falvation  from  this, 
that  God  fpeaks  of  himfelf,  **  as  the  univerfal  Father  of 
*^  Men ;''    and  fays,  ^^  fathers   on   earth    chaflife   their 

**  children 

?  P.  326, 327. 


the  divine  Coodnefs.  147 

**  children    iov  thtir  profit ,  but  do  not  punifh    them,  ha- 

*'  ving  no  view  to  their  advantage.'^ But  does  a  father 

on  earth  never  piiniih  an  incorrigible  child,  when  it  is  ne- 
ceilary  for  the  good  of  the  reft  of  the  family  ?  If  he  did 
not,  but  fufiered  him  toruin  his  whole  family,  or  even  one 
of  his  other  children  ;  would  he  a6l  the  part,  or  deferve 
the  name,  of  a  father  ?  '^  And  fhall  v/e  fay  that  of  our 
'^  Father  in  Heaven  (who  inftead  of  being  evil,  as  all 
*'  earthly  fathers  are  more  orlefs,  is  infinitely  good)  which 
*'  we  cannot  fuppofe  of  any  father  on  earth,  till  we  have 

*^  firft  divcfted  him    of  the  heart  of  a   father?" The 

truth  is,  this  and  all  arguments  of  the  kind  take  for  grant- 
ed what  is  by  no  means  granted,  that  the  falvation  of  all 
men,  is  fubfervient  to  the  good,  not  of  the  perfons  favecj 
only,    but  of  the  univerfal  fyilem. 

I:f  various  pafTages  *  Dr.  C.  has  much  to  fay  of  our  rtafu- 
ral  notions  of  God\^  goodnefs  ;  particularly,  that  the  natural 
notions  we  entertain  of  the  *'  goodnefs  and  m.ercy  of  God, 
'^  rife  up  in  oppofition  to  the  dodrine  of  never  ending  tor- 
'^  ments.*'  I  grant  that  our  natural  notions  of  thofe  di- 
vine attributes  rife  up  in  oppofition  to  endlefs  torments,  on 
the  fuppofition  that  they  are  unjuft  and  inconfiftent  with  the 
general  good.  Cut  on  the  fuppofition  that  they  are  both 
juft  and  lubfervient  to  the  general  good,  our  natural  no- 
tions rife  up  in  favour  of  them.  So  that  this  and  fuch  like 
arguments  all  depend  on  taking  for  granted  what  is  no  more 
granted  than  the  main  queftion. 

Nearly  allied  to  the  argument  from  the  divine  good- 
nefs,  is  tliat  by  which  Dr.  C.  attempts  to  prove  univerfal 
falvation  from  the  end  of  God  in  creation.  ^'  ^As  the  firft 
*'*  caufe  of  all  things  is  infinitely  benevolent,  'tis  not  eafy 
'^  to  conceive  that  he  fnculd  bring  mankind  into  exiftence 
^'  unlefs  he  intended  to  make  them  finally  happy.''  ^'  f  If 
''  the  only  ^ood  God  knev/ — that  fome  free  agents  would 
'^  make  themfelves  unhappy,  notwithftanding  the  utmoft 
■'^  efix)rts  of  his  vvifdom  to  prevent  it^  why  did  he  create 
*'  them  ?  To  give  them  exigence  knowing  at  the  fame 
'^  tim.e  that  they  would  render  themfelves  finally  mifer- 
<<  >able — is  fcarce  reconcileable  with  fupremely  and  abfo- 

'^  folutely   perfed   benevolence." This  argument,  as 

the  preceding,  entirely  depends  on  the  fuppofition  that  the 
final  happinefs  of  every  individual  is  neceflary  to  the  greats 
eft  hapninefs  of  the  fvilem.     Doubtlefs  God  is    abfoiutely 

*P/35i,   kz.    ±P.    I.    t  P  ^;  3-  ^"*^^ 


148  Endltfs  Punijh7neni  conjifhnt  ivith 

and  perfectly   benevolent  :    but    fuch  benevolence  feeks 
the  greateft  happinefs  of  the  fyftem,  not  of  any  individual, 
Vinlefs  the  hajTpinefs  of  that  individual  be    confiftent   with 
the  greateft   happinefs  of  the   fyftem.     This  is    the  plain 
didate  not  of  reafon  only,  but  of  fcripture,   and  is  abun- 
dantly conceded  by  Dr.  C.  as    appears  by    the  quotations 
already  made.     There  is   no  difficulty  therefore  in   con- 
ceiving,  that  however  the  firft  caufe  of  all  things  is  inli- 
nitely  benevolent,  he  fhould  bring  mankind  into  exiftence, 
though  he  never  intended  to  make  them  all  finally  happy. 
He  might  in  perfect  confiftence  with  infinite  benevolence, 
bring  them  into  exiftence,  intending   that    fome   of  them 
ihould  fuffer  that   endlefs    puniihment   w^hich    they  iliould 
deferve,    and  thereby    contribute    to   the    greateft   hap- 
pinefs of  the   fyftem.     And  if  fuch  a  punifliment  be  fub- 
fervient  to  the  greateft  happinefs  of  the  fyftsm,  infinite  be- 
nevolence not  only  admits  of  it,  but  requires  it ;  nor  w^ould 
God  be  infinitely  benevolent,  if  he  fhould  fave  all   men. 
Therefore  this  grand   argument,  on  which  Dr.  C.   and 
other  writers  in  favour   of  univerfal    falvation,    build  fo 
much,  is  a  mere  begging  of  the  queftion.     Let  them  ftiow 
that  the.  greateft  good  of  the  fyftem  requires  the  final  hap- 
pinefs of  every  individual,   and  they  v/ill  indeed  have  gone 
far  toward  the  eftablilhment  of  their  fcheme.     But   until 
they  ihall  have  done  this,  their  argument  from  this  topic 
is  utterly  inconclufive.      It  is  no  more  inconfiftent  with  the 
goodnefs  of  God,   that   he  ihould  create  men  with  a  fore- 
light  and  an  intention,   that  they  fhould  fuifer  that  endlefs 
punifhment  w^hlch  they  fhculd  deferve,  and  which  isfubfer- 
vient  to  the  general  good;  than  that  he  Ihould  create  them 
with  a  forefight  and  intention,   that  they  fhould    fubferve 
the  fame  important  end,  by  fuiFering  the  torment  of  ages 
of  ages,  or  the  pains  of  the  ftone   or  the  colic  ;    provided 
thefe  temporary  pains  are  not  fubfervient  to  their  perfonal 
good.      And  to  fay  that  temporary  pains  cannot  confiftently 
with  the  divine  poodnefs  be  inflicted  on   the  fniner,  unlei's 
they  be  fublervient  to  the  perfonal  good  of  the  patient,  is 
to  contradid  the  plain  dictates  of  reafon,  of  fcripture,  and 
of  Dr.  C.   himielf.     But  this  fubject  has  been  largely  ccn- 
fidered  in  Chap.    III. 

1  Hf.sE,  I  think,  are  Dr.  C's  principal  arguments  from 
the  divine  goodnefs,  to  prove  univerial  falvation ;  I  pre- 
fi4me_,  that  in  his  v/hole  book  there  are  none  more  forcible 

tha^ 


the  divine  Coodnefs,  i^^ 

than  the fe.  His  arguments  of  this  kind  generally,  if  not 
univeri'ally,  depend  on  taking  for  granted,  what  is  as  much 
in  difpute  as  any  point  in  the  whole  controverfy,  that  end- 
lefs  punilhment  is  not  confident  with  the  greatefl  good  of 
the  univerlal  lyitem,  or  the  greateft  general  good.  If  it 
be  true,  that  any  man  will  be  punilhed  without  end,  no 
doubt  it  is  fo  ordered,  becaufe  infinite  wifdom  and  good- 
nefs  faw  it  to  be  necelTary  to  the  general  good.  If  it  bs 
not  true,  it  is  equally  certain,  that  infinite  wifdom  and  good- 
nefs  faw  endlefs  punifhment  to  be  inconfifcent  with  the  ge- 
neral good.  But  which  of  thefe  is  the  truth,  is  the  main 
queftion. 

IV.  That  endlefs  punifliment  is  confiitent  with  the  di- 
vine goodnefs,  not  only  is  implied  in  various  fentiments 
and  tenets  of  T)r.  C,  but  appears  to  be  a  real  and  demon— 
Arable  truth.  To  evince  this,  I  fhall  now,  as  was  propo- 
fed,  mention  feveral  confiderations. 

I.  All  arguments  againft  endlefs  puniOiraent,  drawn 
from  the  divine  mercy,  grace  or  goodnefs,  imply  a  concef- 
iion,  that  endlefs  punifliment  is  juJL  Were  it  not  juft, 
there  would  be  no  occafion  to  call  in  the  aid  of  goodnefs. 
Stern,  unrelenting  judice  would  afford  relief.  Nor  is  there 
the  leaft  goodnefs,  as  diitinguilhed  from  juflice,  exercifed 
by  a  judge,  in  delivering  a  man  from  an  unjuft  punifhment, 
attempted  to  be  brought  upon  him  by  a  falfe  accufer.  If 
therefore  the  falvation  of  finners,  and  of  every  linner,  be 
an  ad  of  goodnefs,  mercy  or  grace,  as  Dr-  C.  abundantly 
declares;  then  endlefs  punifnment  is  jufb.  And  if  it  be 
juft,  it  appears  by  Chap,  ill,  that  it  will  be  inflicted^  and 
inuicled  by  God  too.  Therefore  it  is  coniiflent  wil'o.  di- 
vine goodnefs. 

It  is.hopecfit  has  been  made  manifefl;  in  Chap.  II  and 
III,  that  the  end  of  future  punifliment  is  not  the  perfonal 
good  of  the  patients,  but  to  fatisfy  juftice,  and  fupport  the 
authority  and  dignity  of  the  divine  law  and  government; 
as  both  Dr.  C.  and  the  fcriptures  abundantly  hold,  that 
the  v.acked  will  be  puniflied  to  the  utmoit  extent  of  their 
demerit.  Now  if  the  end  of  future  punilhment,  whether 
temporary  or  endlefs,  be  to  fatisfy  juilice,  and  to  fupport 
government ;  then  the  general  good  is  promoted  by  the 
fatisfadion  of  jviftice  :  otherwife  Godv/ould  not  infiici:  fach 
puniiiiinent.  And  if  the  proof  in  Cli^p.  VI,  that  endisfs 
punilhment  is  juft;  be  valid,   then  juflice   is    not  fatisfied 

by 


I  JO  Endlcfs  pwtrjhment  conpftcnt  vnih 

by   any    punifnment    fiiort   of    endlefs.       But  by   Chitp, 

II  and  III  it  appears,  that  all  that  panifliment,  which  the 
wicked  deferve,  will  a(9^aally  he  inflided  upon  th(^  by 
God.  Therefore  endlefs  punifliment  is  perfectly  confif- 
ftent  with  divine  goodnefs. 

2.  If  the  divine  law  may  be  .in  any  one  inftanee  execu- 
ted confiitentiy  with  divine  goodnefs,  endlefs  punilliment 
is  confident  with  the  divine  goodnefs.  But  the  divine 
law  may,  in  fome  inflances,  be  executed  confident- 
ly  with   divine    goodnefs. 1    have    before     endea- 

voured  to  Ihow,  that  the  penalty  of  the  la\/  is  end- 
lefs puniihment.  If  this  be  true,  then  when  the  law  is  ex- 
ecuted, endlefs  punilhrnent  is  inflicted.  And  who  Vv'ill 
dare  to  fay,  that  God  has  made  a  lav/,  which  he  cannot  in 
any  one  inllance  execute  confidently  with  his  own  perfec- 
tions :  And  that  if  he  fliould  execute  it  in  any  indance,  his 
goodnefs  and  mercy  mud  be  inevitably  given  up  ?  Nay,  he 
delights  in  cruelty  I  If  the  lau'  cannot  be  executed  without 
cruelty,  it  is  a  cruel  unjud  law  :  and  to  make  a  cruel  and 
imjud  law,  is  as  irreconciieable  with  the  moral  reftitude  of 
God,  ^s  to  execute  that  law.  If  the  infiiftion  of  endlefs 
puniihment  be  cruel,  the  threatening  of  it  alfo  is  cruel. 
But  this  runs  into  th?  former  quedion,  whether  endlefs  pu- 
nifhment  be^'z^?. 

If  it  be  faid,  though  the  law  is  juft,  ai^d  the  execution 
of  it  would  not  be  cruel ;  yet  it  cannot  be  executed  confif- 
tently  v/ith  the  divine  goodnefs,  bccaufe  the  divine  good- 
nefs leeks  the  greated  poflible  good  ofthefydeni:  But  the 
greated  po'Hble  good  of  the  fyilem  requires  the  final  hap- 
pinefs  of  all; — As  to  this  I  obferve, 

(i)  That  it  is  giving  up  the  argument  from  divine 
goodnefs  in  the  light,  in  which  Dr.  C.  has  dated  it.  It 
appears  by  the  quotations  already  made,  that  he  held  end- 
lefs puniilnnent  to  be  fo  inconfiilent  v/ith  divine  goodnefs, 
that  if  that  puniihment  be  inflicled,  it  will  pro^^e  God  to  be 
deditute  of  goodnefs,  and  to  dtilght  in  cruelty, 

(2)'  Til  AT  the  nueltion  as  now  dated  comes  to  no  more 
tlianthis,  Whether  endlefs  puniOiment  be  confiitent  v/itli 
the  greated  poiffble  difpiay  of  divine  eoodnefs  :  For  a  fyf-^ 
tern,  in  \vhir:h  there  is  the  greated  polfible  good,  and  the 
greated  po'lible  dilplay  of  the  divine  goodnefs,  are  one  and 
the  fame  thing.  But  if  it  were  granted,  that  endlefs  pu- 
iiiiljmcnt  is,  in  this  fenfe,  inconliiieai  with  the  divine  good- 

nefs, 


the  divine  Gcodmfs,  I^t 

nefs,  it  would  by  no  means  follov/,  on  Dr.  C's  principles, 
that  all  men  will  be  faved.  Becaufe  it  is  an  eftabliihed 
principle  with  him,  that  divine  goodnefs  is  not  and  cannot 
be  difplayed,  to  the  higheft  poGible  degree,  or  fo  but  that 
there  is  room  for  higher  difplays  and  further  communica- 
tions of  it.  *^  *Neith£r  is  it  to  be  fuppofed,  becaufe  God 
'*  is  infinitely  benevolent,  that  he  has  in  faft  made  an  in- 
^*  finite  manifeilation  of  his  goodnefs. — —Infinity  in  bene- 
'*  volence  knows  no  bounds,  but  there    is   ftill  room   for 

*^  more  and  higher  difplays  of  it. This  perfection    is 

'*  flricftly  fpeaking,  inexhauPdble,  not  capable  of  being  dif- 
'^  played  to  a  ne  plus,^^  Therefore,  it  would  be  abfurd 
for  Dr.  C.  or  any  one,  who  agrees  with  him  in  the  fenti- 
ment  expreiTed  In  the  laft  quotation,  to  flate  the  argument 
from  divine  goodnefs,  in  the  light  in  which  it  is  exhibited 
in  the  objeftion  now  under  confideration.  This  fcating  of 
the  argument  runs  entirely  into  the  quefcion,  whether  the 
prefent  fyiiem  of  the  univerfe  be  the  befl  pclfible  ;  v/hich 
Dr.C.  has  fufiiciently  anfwered  in  the  negative,  inthepaf- 
fage  lalt  quoted,  and  in  many  other  pafTages  of  his  writings. 
If  it  be  true,  that  divine  goodnefs  does  not  adopt  and  pro- 
fecute  the  befl  porfibie  plan  of  the  univerfe  in  general  : 
v/hat  rea.ibn  have  wc  to  think,  that  it  will  adopt  and  pro- 
fecute  the  beft  poflible  plan  with  regard  to  any  part  of 
the  divine  fyliem  ;  for  inllance  the  future  (late  of  thofe 
who  die  in  impenitence  ? 

(3)  On  the  fuppolition,  that  God  does  adopt  and  profe- 
cute  the  belt  poilible  plan,  both  with  regard  to  the  univerfe 
in  general,  and  in  every  particular  difpenfation  of  his  pro- 
vidence ;  Hill  we  ihall  never  be  able  to  determine  a  priori, 
that  the  final  falvation  cf  all  men  is,  in  the  fenfe  nov/  un- 
der confideration,  molt  fubfervient  to  the  general  good.  It 
mufl  beidetermined  either  by  the  event  itfelf,  or  by  revela- 
tion :  and  Vv'hecher  revelation  do  alTure  us  of  the  falvation 
of  all  men,  is  not  the  fubjecl  of  inquiry  in  this  chapter,  but 
fhallbe  particularly  confidered  in  its  place. 

3.  If  divine  goodnefs  without  refpecl  to  the  atonement 
of  Chrifl:,  which  is  foreign  from  the  fubjecl  of  this  chapter, 
require  the  falvation  of  all  men  ;  it  either  requires  that  they 
be  faved,  whether  they  repent  or  not ;  or  it  requires,  that 
they  be  faved  on  the  condition  of  their  repentance  only. 
If  it  require  that  they    be    faved,    whether  they  repent  or 


*  Benev.  of  the  Deity,  p.  40. 


no! 


152  Endlefs  Pun'iJImisnt  confident  imth 

not,  it  follows,  that  they  have  dene  no  damage  to  the  uni- 
verfe,  or  have  committed  no  fin.  For  the  very  idea  of  firi 
is  a  damage  to  the  univerfe,  a  difiionor  to  God,  and  an  in- 
jury to  the  creature.  Now  v/henever  a  damage  is  done 
to  the  univerfe,  the  good  of  the  univerfe,  or  which  in  the 
prefent  argument  comes  to  the  fame  thing,  the  divine  good- 
nefs  requires  reparation.  But  if  the  good  of  the  univerfe 
require,  that  the  fninerbe  favcd  without  even  repentance, 
the  good  of  the  univerfe  requires  no  reparation,  and  if  it 
require  no  reparation,  it  has  not  been  impaired,  or  there 
has  been  no  damage  done  to  the  good  of  the  univerfe  : 
and  if  no  damage  have  been  done  to  the  univerfe,  no  fm 
has  been  committed.  No  wonder  then,  that  the  divine 
goodnefs  requires  the  falvation  of  thole  who  have  com- 
mitted no  fm  or  no  moral  evil. 

If  on  the  other  hand  it  be  allowed,  that  by  fin  damage  is 
done  to  the  univerfe,  and  yet  it  be  holden,  that  divine 
goodnefs  requires  the  falvation  of  all  men,  on  the  con- 
dition of  their  repentance  only ;  it  will  follow,  that  re- 
pentance alone  makes  it  conliilent  with  the  general  good, 
that  the  fmner  be  faved.  Repentance  then  repairs  the 
damage  done   to    the   univerfe    by  fm ;   and  fo  m.akes  fa- 

tisfa6lion   or    atonement  for  fin. The  very  eifence 

of  atonement  is  fomething  done  to  repair  the  damage 
done  by  fm  to  the  univerfe,  fo  that  the  fnmer  can 
be  exempted  from  puhiihment,  without  any  difadvantage 
to  the  univerfe.  And  as  repentance  is  a  peribnai  ad:  of  the 
finner,  he  does  on  this  fuppoiition  make  atonement  for  his 
own  fm  by  his  perfonal  virtue.  Therefore,  if  after  this 
he  be  faved  from  wrath,  he  is  but  treated  according  to  his 
perfonal  character,  or  according  to  ftricl  juilice  ;  not  ac- 
cording to  goodnefs  or  grace.  So  that  while  Dr.  C,  pro- 
felTes  and  fuppofes  himfelf  to  be  arguing  from  the  divine 
goodnefs,  the  falvation  of  all  men  from  the  wrath  to  come  ; 
his  arguments  are  really  drav/n  from  the  jujlice  of  God  only . 
They  imply  either  that  the  fmner  who  is  by  divine  good- 
nefs to  be  faved  from  the  wrath  to  come,  is  no  (inner,  de- 
fervcs  no  puniihment,  and  therefore  is  incapable  of  being 
faved  from  wrath,  as  he  is  expofed  to  none;  or  that 
though  he  be  a  iinner,  he  has  in  his  ownperfon,  niade  full 
fatisfaftion  for  his  lin,  and  therefore  merits  falvation  from 
wrath,  and  is  incapable  of  it  by  an  ad  of  grace  or  good- 
nefs. 

4-  T» 


the  divine  Goodnefs,  153 

4.  To  argue  the  falvation  of  all  men  from  the  goddnefs 
of  God,  without  regard  to  the  atonement  of  Chriil  ;  and 
yet  to  allow  that  endlefs  puniiliment  isjufl,  is  a  direct  con- 
tradidion. — ^— If  it  be  allowed  or  proved,  that  endlefs 
punilhment  is  jull,  it  follows  of  courfe  that  it  is  confiftent 
with  the  general  good,  and  which  is  the  fame  thing,  with 
the  divine  goodnefs,  and  is  even  reqnired  by  divine  gocd- 
hefs,  on  the  fuppofition  on  which  we  now  proceed,  that 
no  atonement  is  made  for  fin.  The  very  idea  of  a  juft 
punifliinent  of  any  crime  is  a  punilhment  vv'hich  in  view  of 
the  crime  only,  is  requifite  to  repair  the  damage  done  to 
the  fyfbem  by  that  crime.  Any  further  punidimeuE  than 
this  is  unjufl:,  and  any  punilhment  Oiort  of  this,  falls  fhort 
of  the  demand  of  julHce.  At  the  lame  tim.e  that  this  is 
demanded  by  juftice,  it  is  demanded  by  the  general  good 
too:  becaufe  by  the  definition  of  a  juft  punilhrnent,  it  is 
neceiTary  to  the  general  good  ;  necellary  to  fecure  it,  or  to 
repair  the  damage  done  to  it,  by  the  crime  puniihed.  So 
that  a  jufl  punilhment  of  any  crime  is  not  only  coniiftent 
with  the  general  good,  but  is  abfolutely  required  by  it, 
provided  other  meafures  equivalent  to  this  punifnment  be 
not  taken  torepair  the  damage  done  by  fin,  or,  v/hich  is  the 
fame,  provided  an  atonement  be  not  made.  And  if  the 
endlefs  punifnment  of  Hnbe  juil;  it  is  of  courfe,  on  theprovi- 
fojufl  made,  perfectly  ccniiflent  v/iththe  general  good  of  the 
univerfe,  and  abfolutely  required  by  it,  and  equally  requi- 
red by  the  goodnefs  of  God.  And  to  fay  that  though  it 
be  juit,  it  is  not  reconcileable  with  the  divine  goodnefs,  is 
the  fame  pfS  to  fay,  that  though  it  be  juil:,  it  is  not  recon- 
cileable with  juilice. 

Objection  :  Divine  goodnefs  does  not  admit  of  the 
endlefs. punifhment  of  the  apollle  Paul  ;  yet  his  endlefs 
punilhment  would  be  juft. — ■ — Anfwer  :  Divine  goodnefs, 
or  the  general  good  of  the  univerfe,  confidering  the  fms 
or  the  perfonal  character  of  Paul  by  itfeli,  does  both  ad- 
mit and  require  his  endlefs  punifhment.  But  conftdering 
the  atonement  of  Chrift,  which,  as  I  have  repeatedly  ob. 
ferved,  comes  not  into  confideration  in  the  prefent  argu  • 
ment,  it  does  not  indeed  admit  of  it. 

I^EEGleave  to  a  Ik  the  advocates  for  unlverfal  falvation, 
whether  if  Chrift  had  not  made  atonement,  it  would  have 
been  confiftent  with  the  general  good  of  the  univerfe, 
thatlinners  be  puniihed  without  end.  If  they  anfwer  in 
the  affirmative,  then  endlefs  puniiliment  is  in  itfelf  recon- 

X  cileable 


154  Endlep  Pumjhment  conji/tent  with 

cileable  not  with  juftice  only,  but  with  gooclnefs  too,  as 
goodnefs  always  acquiefces  in  that  vv'hich  is  confiftent  with 
the  general  good.  For  if  only  in  confequence  of  the  atone- 
ment^ endlel's  pimifliment  be  inconfiftent  with  the  divine 
goodnefs,  it  becomes  inconliftent  with  it,  not  on  account 
of  any  thing  in  the  endlefs  punifliment  of  fm,  or  in  the  di- 
vine goodnefs  firaply  ;  but  wholly  on  account  of  fon:e- 
thinp-  external  to  them  both  :  and  therefore  that  external 
fomething  being  left  out  of  the  account,  there  is  no  mcon- 
liltency  between  the  endlefs  puniilmient  of  fm  and  the  di- 
vine poodnefs  in  themfelves  conildered.  But  that  they  arc 
in  themfelves  inconinlent  is  implied  in  Dr.  C's  argument 
from  divine  goodnefs  ;  and  that  they  are  not  in  themfelves 
inconfiitent  is  all  for  which  I  am  now  pleading. 

If  the  anfwer  to  the  queftion  juft  propofed  be,  that  it 
Vs^oukl  not  be  conliflcnt  with  the  general  good,  that  a  fin- 
ncrbe  punifhcd  Vv4thout  end,  even  if  Chrift  had  not  made 
atonement  ;  it  follows,  that  fuch  punifliment  is  not  juft  ; 
as  the  very  definition  of  a  juft  punifhment  is,  one  which 
in  view  of  the  fmner's  perfonal  character  only  is  neceffary 
to  the  general  good. Or  if  this  be  not  a  proper  defini- 
tion of  a  juft  punifliment^  let  a  better  be  given.  Any  pu- 
niHiment  is  juft,  or  is  deferved,  for  no  other  reafon,  than 
that  the  criminal  viewed  in  himJelf  owes  it  to  the  pubhc, 
or  the  general  good  requires  it. 

«;.  If  divine  goodnefs  require,  that  every  (inner  be,  on 
on  his   mere  repentance,  exempted    from  puniihm.ent,  it 

will  follow,  that  fm  is  no  moral  evil. If  divine  goodnefs 

require  that  every  (inner  be,  on  his  mere  repentance,  ex- 
empted from  puniflmient,  the  general  good  of  the  univerfc 
requires  the  fame.  If  the  general  good  do  require  it, 
then  either  the  linner  hath  in  that  aclion,of  which  he  re- 
pents, done  nothing  by  which  the  general  good  hath  been 
impaired  ;  or  that  impairment  is  repaired  by  his  repent- 
ance. For  if  he  have  impaired  the  general  good,  and 
not  afterward  repaired  it,  then  by  the  very  terms  it  re- 
quires reparation.  And  this  which  the  general  good  inthefe 
cafes  requires  of  the  iinner  for  the  reparation  of  the  general 
good,  is  his  punifhment,  and  not  his  exemption  from  pu— 
niflnnenr.  But  if  the  fmncr  have  done  nothino'  whiclj  re- 
quires  that  reparation  be  made  to  the  general  good,  then 
he  hath  committed  nothing  which  hath  impaired  the  gene- 
ral good  :  or,  which  is  the  fame,  he  hath  committed  no 

moral 


the  divine  Coodnsfs,  ,i^^ 

moral  evil.  For  moral  evil  is  a  voluntary  a6l  impairing  the 
general  good  confiiiing  in  the  glory  of  God  and   the  hap- 

pinefs  of  the  created  iyiiem. Or  if  it  be  fiiid,   that  the 

repentance  of  the  linner  repairs  the  general  good^  and 
prevents  the  ill  eiFecls  of  his  lin  ;  I  aniwer,  repentance  is 
no  punifliment,  nor  any  reparation  of  damage  to  the  uni- 
verie  by  a  pafl  action.  It  is  a  mere  celi^ition  from  Im  and 
a  forrow  for  it.  A  man  who  has  conimitted  murder,  makes 
by  repentance  no  reparation  for  the  damage  which  is  there- 
by done  to  fociety  or  to  the  univerfe.  So  that  if  ever  any 
damage  were  done  to  the  univerfe  by  fm,  and  if  therefore 
the  public  good  required  that  reparation  be  made  by  the 
puni/hment  of  the  linner,  it  ftill  recjuires  the  fame,  and 
therefore  does  not  require  his  exemption  from  punifhment. 
Bellde  ;  the  falfe  and  abfurd  confequeuces*  necelTarily 
following  from  the  principle  that  the  penitent  delerves  no 
puniihment,  which  is  the  fame  with  this,  that  the  general 
good  does  not  require  that  the  penitent,  viewed  in  his 
own  character  merely,  be  puniflied  ;  plainly  point  out  the 
falfrcy  and  abfurdity  of  the  principle  itfelf.  Particularly 
this  confequence,  that  on  that  fuppolition  the  penitent 
never  is  nor  can  be  forgiven,  as  he  makes  by  his  repentance 
full  fatisfaclion  in  his  own  perfon,  and  thus  anfwers  the  de- 
mand of  jaftice  or   of  the  general  good. But  if  it  be 

true,  that  repentance  does  not  repair  the  damage  done  by 
fm  to  the  univerfe  ;  and  if  as  is  now  aiTerted,  the  general 
good  do  require  that  the  penitent  fnmer,  without  regard 
to  the  atonement  of  Chriit,  be  exempted  from  puniihment ; 
it  required  the  fame  before  he  repented  ;  confequently  his 
fm  never  did  impair  the  good  of  the  univerfe,  and  there- 
fore is  no  moral  evil. 

Objkction  I.  The  fourth  argument  feems  to  imply, 
that  {in  confifts  in  damage  actually  done  to  the  univerfe  : 
whereas  there  are  many  fms,  in  which  no  real  damage  is 
adually  done.  As  if  a  man  flab  another  with  a  delign  to 
murder  him,  and  open  an  abfcefs,  whereby  the  man  is  be- 
nefited inftead  of  murdered ;  and  in  all  acts  of  malice, 
which  are  not  executed,  no  damage  is  actually  done. 

Answ.   Taking  the  word    damage  in  a  large  fenfe,   to 
"".  mean,  not  merely  lofs  of  property,  as  it  is  fometimes  taken, 
but  mifery,  calamity  or  natural  evil  ;  it   may   be  granted, 
that  (in  does  conlill  in  voluntarily  doing  damage  to  the  uni- 
verfe.    It  is  a  mifery,  a  calamity,  or  a  natural  evil  to  any 

*   See  thcfe  conjidered at  larg^  in  Chap.  IL  lu^i^ 


1 1^6  Endlefs  PunJfljmcnt  confident  with 

man,  to  be  the  obje^l  of  the  malice  of  any  other  perfon^ 
though  his  malice  be  never  executed.  It  expofes  him  to 
the  execution  of  that  mahce  :  it  renders  him  unfafe  :  and 
to  be  unfafe  is  a  calamity  ;  efpecially  to  be  the  object  of 
the  malice  of  another  to  fuch  a  degree,  that  the  malicious 
man  attempts  the  life  of  the  object  of  his  malice.  In  this 
cafe  the  man  who  is  the  object  of  malice  is  very  unfafe  in- 
deed.  And  if  but  one  perfon  be  in  a  calamitous  lituati- 

on,  fo  far  at  leaft  the  public  good  is  impaired,  or  the  uni- 
verfe  is  damaged.  Befides,  if  that  one  act  impairing  the 
public  good,  be  left  i.mpunilhed,  and  no  proper  reftraint  by 
the  puniihment  of  the  act,  be  laid  upon  the  man  himfelf 
and  upon  others,  the  flood-gate  is  opened  to  innumerable 
more  ads  of  the  fame,  or  a  like  kind.  This  furely  is  a 
further  calamity  to  the  univerfe.  So  that  every  fmful  vo- 
lition, though  it  fail  of  its  objedl  in  the  attempt,  or  though 
it  be  not  attempted  to  be  executed  in  overt  ad,  is  a  real 
calamity  or  damage  to  the  univerfe. 

Object.  2.  The  preceding  reafoning  muft  needs  be  fal- 
lacious, as  it  implies,  that  goodnefs  or  grace  is  never  exer- 
cifed  in  any  cafe,  wherein  puniihment  is  deferved  ;  that 
■whatever  is  admitted  by  juftice,  is  required  by  goodnefs  ; 
and  that  if  fm  be  a  moral  evil  and  deferve  puniihment,  it 
cannot  confiftently  with  the  general  good  be  forgiven. 

Answ.  This  is  not  .true.  The  reafoning  above  does 
not  imply,  but  that  there  may  be,  confifbentiy  with  the  ge- 
neral good,  the  forgiven efs  of  fome  finners.  Nor  does 
it  imply,  but  that  the  general  good  may  require  the  for- 
givenefs  of  fome  linners ;  as  undoubtedly  it  does  require 
the  forgivenefs  of  all  who  repent  and  believe  in  Chrift, 
and  fo  become  interefted  in  him  according  to  the  Gofpel. 
Nor  does //j/Vrf^/o^i/w^  imply,  but  that  fome  fmners  m.ay 
obtain  forgivenefs  on  fome  other  account  than  the  merits  of 
Chrift  :  though  I  believe  it  may  be  clearly  Ihown  from  fcrip- 
ture,  that  forgivenefs  can  be  obtained  on  no  other  account. 
But  tliis  reafoning  does  affert,  that  if  all  penitents  as  fuch, 
or  m.erely  becaufe  tacy  are  penitents,  or  on  account  of  their 
own  repentance  and  reformation,  be  required  by  divine 
goodnefs  to  be  exempted  from  puniHimeni ;  then  fm  de- 
ferves  no  puniflmient  and  is  no  moral  evil. 

6.  The  voice  of  reafon  is,  that  divine  goodnefs,  or  a 
regard  to  the  general  good  requires,  that  fin  be  punifhed 
according  to  its  dement,  in  fome  inilances  at  lead  :   other- 

w)ie 


the  divine  Goodnefs,  i<y 

wife  God  would  not  appear  to  be  what  he  really  is,  an  ene- 
my to  fin,  and  greatly  difpleafed  with  it. It  is  certain- 
ly confiftent  with  divine  goodnefs,  that  fin  exifts  in  the 
world,  otherwife  it  would  never  haveexifted.  ITowfmce 
fin  is  in  the  worlds  if  God  were  never  topuniihit,  it  would 
feem,  that  he  is  no  enemy  to  it.  Or  if  he  pnniih  it  in  a 
far  lefs  degree  than  it  deferves,  ftill  it  would  feem,  chat 
his  difpleafure  at  it  is  far  lefs  than  it  is  and  ought  to  be. 
Nor  can  mere  words  or  verbal  declarations  of  the  Deity 
fufficiently  exhibit  his  oppofiticn  to  fni,  fo  long  as  he  uni- 
formly treats  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  in  the  fan:e 
manner.  His  character  in  viev/  of  intelligent  creatures 
will  appear  to  be  what  it  is  holdfin  forth  to  be  in  his  actions, 
rather  than  what  he  in  rriere  words  declares  it  to  be.  But 
will  any  man  fay,  that  it  is  conducive  to  the  good  order  and 
happinefs  of  the  intellectual  fyflem,  that  God  fnould  ap- 
pear to  be  no  enemy,  but  rather  a  friend  to  fin  ? 

Objection.  God  would  (1111  appear  to  be  an  enemy  to 
fin,  though  he  were  not  to  punifh  it :  becaul'e  he  takes  the 
moft:  efFedual  meafures,  to  e^airpate  it  by  leading  linners 

to  repentance. Anfw.  The  extirpation  of  fm  Ihows   no 

other  hatred  of  it,  than  a  phyfician  fnov\'i;  to  a  diieafe.  Vv'hich 
he  takes  the  moft  effeftual  meal'ures  to  aboliih,  by  the  re- 
froration  of  health.  But  thefe  meafures  of  the  phyfician 
do  not  iliow,  that  he  viev/s  his  patient  as  blameable.  Sick- 
nefs  is  no  moral  evil,  and  all  the  pains  of  the  phyl'rian  to 
remove  licknefs,  are  no  tefdmony  of  his  abhorrence  of  mo- 
ral evil.  But  Im  is  a  moral  evil,  and  it  is  fubfervient  to 
the  general  good,  that  the  great  governor  of  the  univerfe 
ihould  teftify  his  abhorrence  of  it,  as  a  moral  evil,  or  as 
juftly  blameable.  To  this  end  he  mud  do  fomething  fur- 
ther tlian  is  done  by  the  phy'ician,  who  heals  his  patient : 
he  muft  either  in  the  perfon  of  the  finnsr,  or  in  his  fubfti- 
tute,  punifii  fm,  and  that  according  to  its  demerit ;  other- 
wife  he  will  not  ihow  himfelf  difpleafed  at  it  as  a  moral  e- 
vil. 

HatPvEd  of  fm  is  as  eflential  to  the  Deity  as  love  of  ho— 
linefs  ;  and  it  is  as  honorable  to  him  and  as  necelTary  to 
the  general  good,  thathe  exprefs  the  former  as  the  latter. 
Indeed  the  latter  is  no  further  expreiTed^  than  the  former  is 
expreire4  :  and  {o  far  as  the  former  is  doubtful,  the  Litter 
is  doubtful  too.  The  queition  then  comes  to  this,  v.'hether 
it  be  confiftent  with  the  general  good^    that  God  fhould  in 

actions^ 


^1-53  Endlefs  Punijlnnent  confi/lsnt  with 

anions,  as  well  as  words,  exprefs  his  abhorrence  of  fin  a» 
blameabl?,  or  as  a  moral  evil ;  and  exprefs  this  abhorrence 
to  a  j nil  degree.  If  this  be  confiftsnt  with  the  general 
good,  ir'  is  alio  confillent  with  the  general  g;ood,  that  fm  be 
puniflied  accordmg  to  its  demerit :  and  if  it  deierve  an  end- 
lefs pumfhment,  it  is  coniiiient  with  the  general  o-ood  and 
v/ith  divine  goodnefs,  tliat  fach  a  puniibment  be  infljcled* 
7.  That  endlefs  puaiilraient  is  inconfiilent  with  divine 
goodnefs,  and  that  all  men  are  faved  by  free  grace,  is  a  di- 
re.^c  contradiclion.  To  be  faved  is  to  he  delivered  from 
the  curie  of  the  law,  which  we  have  before  endeavoured 
to  ihow  to  be  an  endlefs  puniOirnents  But  to  be  faved 
from  this  by  free  grace,  implies^  that  the  perfon  fo  faved, 
deferves  endleis  punifiiment,  and  that  fuch  puniihment  is 
with  refpfiLLto  hiin  jull.  But  v/hatever  pnnifhnient  is  juft 
with  refped  to  any  man,  provided  no  atonement  be  made 
\rf  afubiL'tuie,  isneceiRu'v  to  the  public  good  ;  and  unlefs 
h  be  neceifary  to  the  public  good,  it  is  nnjufl.  If  it  be 
neceiTary  to  the  public  good,  the  public  good  requires  it  : 
and  if  the  public  good  require  it,  divine  goodnefs  ret]uires 
St.  Therefore  to  apply  this  reafoning  to  the  endlefs  pu- 
niihment of  the  fmner  : — The  falvation  of  the  iinner  con- 
ih%s  in  deliverance  from  the  curfe  of  the  law  :  the  cnrfe  of 
the  law  is  endlefs  panifi'ment ;  and  to  be  delivered  from 
this  by  free  grace,  implies,  that  the  endlefs  puniilmient  of 
the  {inner  is  juit.  If  the  endlefs  puniihment  of  the  fmner 
be  juit.  and  no  atonement  be  made  by  a  fubilitute,  the  pub- 
lic good  requires  his  endlefs  punilliment,  and  the  divine 
goodnefs  of  courfe  requires  it.  So  that  if  the  Iinner  can 
be  faved  by  free  grace  only,  and  no  atonement  be  made  by 
a  fnbflitute,  the  endleis  puniihment  of  the  fmner  is  not  at 
all  inconfident  with  divine  goodnefs  ;  and  to  fay  that  it  is 
inconiiilient  with  x.\iQ.  divine  goodnefs,  and  yet  to  fay  that 
all  men  are  faved  by  free  grace,  and  can  be  faved  in  no 
other  way,  implies,  as  I  laid,  a  direct  contradiction.  It 
implies,  that  endlefs  puniihment  is  juft,  as  the  deliverance 
from  it  is  tiie  fruit  of  grace  only  :  it  alfo  implies,  that  it  is 
not  juft,  as  the  public  good  or  the  divine  goodnei's  does  not 
require  it,  but  is  inconiiitent  witiiit. 


C  HA  P. 


Do€for  Cs  argument  '59 


aaBS^ESESEt"*** 


CHAP.      IX. 

In  which  is  confidered  Dr,  Chauncy''s  argument  from 
Rom,   Vf   12,   ac. 

T  TAVING  in  the  preceding  cha])ters  confidrred  Dr. 
X~i  C's  arguments  from  realon  and  from  the  divine  per- 
fections, I  proceed  now  to  confider  thofe  \Vn^  are  drawn 
from  particular  paiTages  of  fcripture.  TKe  nm  oT'tfjble 
pafTages  which  demands  our  attention  is  Rom.  V,  12 ^  &c« 
*^  Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  tin  entered  into  the  world, 
*'  and  death  by  fm  ;  and  fo  death  palfed  upon  all  men; 
'^  for  that  all  have  finned.  For  until  the  lavv'  fm  was  in 
V  the  world  ;  but  lin  is  not  imputed,  when  there  is  no  lav/. 
'*  Nevertbelcfs  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moies,  even 
"  over  them  that  had  not  finned,  after  ihe  fimilitude  of 
'^  Adam's  tranrgreflion,  Vy-ho  is  the  figure  of  him  that  was 
'^  to  come.  But  not  as  the  offence,  fo  alio  is  the  free  gift. 
For  if  through  the  offence  of  one,  many  be  dead  ;  much^ 
more  the  grace  of  God,  and  th©-^ift  by  grace,  which  is 
by  one  man,  Jefus  Chriil:,  hath  aboun-ded  unto  many. 
And  not  as  11  was  by  one  that  iinned,   fo  is  the  gift :   for 


4t 

tc 

<( 

"  the  judgm.ent  v/as  by  one  to  condemnation  ;  but  the  free 

*^  gift  is  of  i:i=ny  offences   unto   juftincaticn.     lor  if  by 
i( 

it 


4( 


one  man's  oflence  death  reigned  by  one  ;  much  more 
they  which  receive  abundance  of  grace,  and  of  the  gift 
**  of  righteoufnefs,  fliall  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jefus  Chnft. 
•'  Therefore  as  by  the  olfence  of  one,  judgment  came  irp-» 
*'  on  all  men 'to  condemnation  :  even  fo  by  the  righteouf- 
nefs of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  juRilica- 
''  tionoflife.  For  as  by  one  man's  difobedience  many  were 
"  made  iinners  ;  fo  by  the  obedience  of  one,  l]]all  mr.ny 
^*  be  mads  ri~hteous.  Ivlcreover,  the  law  entered  that 
*^  gr;;xe  might  abound :  but  where  Im  abounded,  grace. 
*'  did  much  more  abouu;:! :  That  as  lin  hath  reigned  un- 
*•  to  death,  even  fo  miii-ht  rrrace  rei'-n  throuoh  rio;htc- 
'*  oufnefs  unto  eternal  Hfe,  by  Jcfuo  Cbriil,  our  Lord." 
Tme  Do^Tor's  argument  from  this  palTr^ge  depends 
wholly  on  the  fv-ppc^i^iion,  that  the  arofcle  confiders  *'  Adam 
and  Chriil  as  the  rei^:)e<ttive. o];^po'ite  iburces  of  death  and 
Hife  to  mankind  unlverfally  :*'    Or  that  Chrlilis  the  lciir:e 

cf 


i6o  '  Dd{ffor^  Cs  urgufnent  fr  om 

of  life  and  eternal  falvation  to  all  men  without  exception^ 
as  Adam  was  the  fource  of  death  to  all  men  without  ex- 
ception.    The  Doctor^s  reafons  to  fupport  this  propofition 

are, (i)   That  in  the  15th  verfe  it  is  faid,  '^  If  through 

^'  the  offence  of  one  many  be  dead,  much  more  hath  the 
*^  grace  of  God  abounded  unto  many  :"  and  as  by  7nany 
in  the  former  part  of  this  verfe  is  meant  all  men,  there- 
fore he  concludes  that  the  fame  word  is  ufed  in  the  fame 
extenfive    ^erScy    in     the    latter     part    of    the      verfe  ; 

'^  the  antitli^ris/'  he  fays,  *' will  otherwife  be  loft."- * 

(2)  The   word  many,  ■/ro>xoi^  means  all  men,   becaufe   the 

article  is  prefixed  to  it,  o/.tox\o;. (-:;)   That  in   the    i8th 

verfe  it  is  exprcfily  aflerted,  '*  As  by  the  offence  of  ©ne,  the 
*'  judgment  cairie  upon  all  men,  ?/?  T-^i-lac  «vbp&Tovc,  to 
*'  condemnation  ;  even  fo  by  the  rigliteoufnefs  of  one, 
''  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men,  ^^^  ^a/'^^c  Av6p&^7rcyc,  unto 
'^  judificaiion  of  life.''  Whence  the  Doftor  concludes^ 
that  the  words  all  men  in   both  parts  of  the    comparifon, 

are  ufed  in  the  fame  extent. (4)   That   the    advantage 

by  Chrill:  exceeds ,  .abounds  beyond  j  the  dif  ad  vantage  by 
Adam  ;  but  this,  unlefs  all  men  be  faved,  would  be  fo  far 
from  the  truth,  that  the  former  would  *^  fink  belov/  the 
^•'  ^latter." Let  us  attend  to  thefe  diftindlly. 

I.  Thk  word  many  in  the  former  part  of  the  15th  and 
19th  verfes,  means  all  men  :  therefore  it  means  the  fame 
in  the  latter  part  of  thofe  verfes  :  ^'  the  antithefis  will 
*^  otherv/ife  be  \o?c,*^^  Now  how  does  the  truth  of  this 
propofition  appear?  It  muft  certainly  be  fupported  by  pro- 
per proof,  to  obtain  credit.  But  in  the  very  many  initan- 
ces  in  which  the  Dcdcr  is  pleafed  to  repeat  this  propofi- 
tion, in  his  long  commentary  en  Rom,  V,  12,  &:c.  I  do  not 
find  one  reafon  offered  to  prove  it,  befide  that  quoted  abov^e, 
'^  The  antithefis  will  otherwife  be  lolt.*"  This  therefore 
is  now  to  be  confidered. In  the  rebellion  in  Great  Bri- 
tain, 1745,  large  numbers  of  men  were  engaged  in  the 
rebellion,  and  vv'ere  led  av.'ay  by  the  Pretender.  After 
the  Pretender  was  defeated,  larp-e  numbers,  by  the  influ- 
ence of  fome  particular  peribn,  we  will  fuppofe,  return- 
ed to  their  allegiance,  and  took  the  proper  oaths  to  the 
King:  yet  not 'all  who  were  drawn  into  therebeUion 
by  the  Pretender.  Now'  would  there  be  any  improprie- 
ty in  fa^'ing  in  this  cafe,  As  by  the  Pretender  many  had 

been 

*^  P.  32,  6c,  &c. 


■Rom.   J^.    12,   (3C,   conjidered,  i6i 

been  drawn  into  the  rebellion,  ib  by  that  other  perfon  ma" 
ny  were  brought  back  to  their  allegiance  ?  The  former  ma- 
ny is  allowed  to  be  more  extenfive,  than  the  latter  ;  yet 
there  is  a  manifefl:  antithefis  in  the  propoiition ;  an  anti- 
thefis  as  manifefl  as  there  would  have  been,  if  the  men  who 
returned  to  their  allegiance,  had  been  juil  as  numerous  as 
thole  who  engaged  in  the  rebellion,  and  had  been  the  fame 
individuals.  Equally  manifefl  it  is,  that  though  the  many^ 
who  died  in  Adam,  be  more  numerous  than  the  many  who 
are  the  fnbjecls  of  faving  grace  by  Chrifl :  yet  there  is  a 
proper  antitheiis  in  this  propoiition, — '^l^  through  the  of- 
**  fence  of  one,  many  be  dead  ;  much  more  the  grace  of 
<*   God  by  Jefus  Chrifl,  hath  abounded  unto  many/' 

2.  The  word  -many,  ?rf>XA0/,  m.eans  all  men.becaufe  the  arti- 
cle is  joined  v/ithit,  0/  ^o>xo;,  the  many."^' — If  this  be  evident 
71  all,  it  mufl  be  evident  either  from  the  general  ufeot  the 
adjective -o^>^5',  when  conneded  with  the  article,  or  from 
the  circumftances  of  tlie  particular  cafe  in  which  it  is  ufed 
in  this  palTage,  Rom.  V.  i  c;,  and  19.  If  the  vahdity  of  the 
argument  nowunder  confideration,  be  evident  from  the  ge- 
neral ufe  of  sTc7t;c  in  the  plural  with  the  article  ;  then  gene- 
rally when  ufed  by  good  authors,  and  efpecially  by  the  au- 
thors of  the  New  Teflament,  it  means  a  llrift  univerfalit}^* 

Let  us  therefore  attend    to  particular   infiances. Acts 

XXVI,  24.  ^^  Much  learnino-  doth  make  thee  mad;  '"  1* 
iro\xa.  y^a.y.,x3.^\A.  But uo  mau  will  fay,  that  this  expreniou 
means  all  learning.  The  ufe  of  the  article  however  is  ve- 
ry proper,  and  the  expreliion  means  the  much  learning  of 

which  tho.  apoflle  was  poiTeued.- 2  Cor.  II,  17  ;   '^  For 

*'  v/e  are  not  as  many^  o;  rroxxo/,  which  corrupt'the  word  of 
''  God."  If  0/  ^o.Ao/  here  mean  all  men,  the  apoftle  in 
direct  contra'diclion  to  himfelf  in  this  very  expreffion, 
means  that  he  himfelf,  and  all  the  other   apcftles,  as   well 

the  refl  of  mankind,  did  corrupt  the  word  of  God.— Rev. 

XVII,  I  ;  <*  I  will  Ihow  unto  thee  the  judgment  of  th« 
^'  great  whore,  that  fitteth  upon  many  waters/'  l^-'y 
veTalay  lav  ^rowav.  All  Waters,  or  all  p-eople  cannot  be  meant, 
becaufe  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  nations  of  the  world 
never  were  under  the  influence  of  the  great  whore. — The 
only  other  infiances  in  the  whole  New  Teflament,  in  which 
vt>\vi  in  the  plural  is  ufed  with  the  article,  are  Mat.  XXIV, 
12.  Rom.  XII,  5.    Ch.  XV,   22.     1  Cor.    X,  17   and  33, 

y  which 

*  p.  60. 


i62  Do^or  Cs  argument  fr%m 

which  the  reader  may  examine  for  himfelf,  and  it  Is  pre- 
fumed,  he  will  find,  that  in  no  one  of  them  is  a  ftricl  uni- 
verfality  clearly  intended.  If  this  be  fo,  it  is  by  no  means 
evident  from  the  general  ufe  of  ^o.t^-  in  the  plural  with 
the  article,  that  o/j5oxxo/,  manyy  in  Rom.  V,  15  and  19, 
means  all  men. 

N Oil  is  this  more  evident  from  the  circumflances  of  the 
particular  cafe,  in  which  matxy,  0/  tt&xxo/,  is  ufed  in  Rom. 
V.  15.  Let  it  be  tranflated  as  Dr.  C.  choofesto  translate 
it,  thus  :  If  through  the  offence  of  one,  the  many  be  dead, 
7nuch  more  the  grace  of  God,  by  one  man,  Jefus  Chrift, 
hadi  abounded  unto  tl"  many.  Nothing  appears  from  the 
exprellion,  but  that  the  meaning  of  the  apoftle  may  be, 
Y/hat  it  has  generally  been  underitcod  to  be,  that  the  many 
who  were  connected  with  Adam,  and  v/hofe  life  or  death 
depended  on  his  {landing  or  falling,  became  dead  through 
his  offence  :  and  the  many  who  are  connected  with  Clu'iil, 
and  with  a  particular  delign  to  favewhom.  He  died,  fliall 
be  made  the  fubiecls  of  the  aboundinp-  erace  of  God  in  their 

moi^  glorious  falvation. 1  fay,  nothing  appears,  either 

from  the  general  ufe  of  0/  -roxxu,  or  from  the  particular 
ufe  of  it  in  this  cafe,  but  that  this  and  this  only  is  the  real 
fenfe  of  it,  in  this  inftance.  And  for  Dr.  C.  to  wifli  his 
readers,  before  he  has  given  them  a  reafon,  to  give  up  this 
{^iS.^  in  favor  of  his  ov/n,  is  for  him  to  come  to  them  in  the 
humble  character  of  a  fuppliant,  and  not  in  the  digniiied 
charafler  of  a  cogent  rcafoner. 

3.  In  the  loth  verfe,  it  is  expreflly  afferted.  As  by  the 
offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men^  5^5  Travla?- 
«y6,06J7rot;?,  to  condemnation  ;  even  fo  by  the  righteoufnefs 
of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men,  u;  Trctv^ct;  «y9p«7rci/?, 
to  juftification  of  life  :  whence  Dr,  C.  concludes,  that 
the  words  all  men,  in  both  parts  of  the  comparifon  are 
ufed  in  the  fame  extent  ;  and  fays,  *^  It  can  be  no  other 
'^  than  a  flat  contradi6lion  to  the  exprefs  words  of  the 
*^  apoflle  to  fay,  that  in  the  latter  part  of  this  comparifon 
'*  not  all  men  are  meant,  but  believers  only  ;  that  is,  a  few 
*'  of  them."*  It  is  indeed  a  fiat  contradidbion  toDr.  C^s 
fenfe  of  the  apoille^s  words  ;  but  that  it  is  a  contradiftion 
to  the  ti'ue  fenfe  of  thofe  words,  does  not  appear.  If  it 
fhould  be  further  granted  to  be  a  contradiftion  to  the  moft 
literal  fenfe  of  thofe  words  taken  by  themielves,  it  would 
not  thence  follow,  that  it  is   a  contradic'tion  to    the  true 

*  P.   32.  antJ 


Ro?n.   V.  12,   ^c.  confidcred,  id:; 

aftd  real  fenre  of  the  words.     The  real  fenfe  of  words  in 
all  authors,  is  in  thouCands  of  inftances  to  be  known,  not 
from  the  words  themfelves  merely,  but   from  their   con 
Heclion   and  other  circumftances. 

The  Dr.  rightly  afferts,  that  the  words  all  men  in  verfe 
1 8th,  mean  the  fame  with  M^  many  in  verfe  15th.  And  as  it 
has  been  fhown^  that  there  is  no  evidence  given  by  the 
Ootlor,  that  the  many,  to  vv'hom  grace  abounds  through 
Chriftj  mean  all  men  ;  fo  all  men  in  the  i8th  verfe  mean- 
ing, by  his  own  confent,  the  fame  with  the  many  in  verfe 
35th,  mult.,  until  we  have  evidence  to  the  contrary,  be  un- 
tie rftood  vvdth  the  fame  reflriclion.  To  carry  on  the  com- 
parifon,  and  maintain  the  antithefis,  there  is  no  more  re-' 
cefJity  of  underftanding  the  v/ords  all  men,  v/lien  applied 
to  the  fa\ned  by  Ghriil:  in  the  i8th  verfe,  to  mean  the 
whole  human  race  ;  than  there  is  of  underftanding  in  that 
extent,  the  many  in  the  latter  part  of  verfe  15th. 

Beside  ;  the  meaning  of  thefe  words  is  abundantly 
refirifled  by  the  context  :  as  verfe  17th,  *'  For  if  by  one 
^^  man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one  ;  much  more  they 
'^  which  receive  abundance  of  grace,  and  of  the  gift  of 
^^  righteom'hefs,  fliall  reign  by  one,  Jcfus  Chrift."  The 
1 8th  verfe  is  an  inference  drawn  from  the  i/th^  and  is  in- 
troduced by  *,•«  ow,  therefore.  But  the  1 8th  verfe  would 
benojuft  inference  at  all  from  the  i/th,  unlefs  the  words 
all  men  in  the  latter  part  of  the  i8th  verfe  be  equally  re- 
{Iricted  as  the  Vv'ords  they  •u)hich  receive  abundance  of  grace  ^ 
in  the  17th  verfe.  Let  us  make  trial  of  underftanding  thofe 
phrafes  in-  a  fenfe  differently  exteniive,  thus  ;  For  if  by 
one  man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one  ;  much  more  true 
believers  in  this  life,  who  are  the  fubjedls  of  the  peculiar 
and  abundant  grace  of  God,  fnall  reign  in  eternal  life  by 
one,  Jefus  Chrift.  Therefore  as  by  the  offence  of  one, 
judgment  came  upon  all  men univerfally  to  condemnation  ; 
even  fo  by  the  righteoufnels  of  one,  the  free  gift  came 
upon  all  m.en  univerfally  unto  juftification  of  life,  whether 
in  this  world  they  believe  or  not.  The  Vvdiole  force  of  this 
reafoning  is  more  briefly  expreffed  thus  ;  I'hofe  who  be- 
lieve in  this  life,  (hall  reign  in  life  eternal  :  therefore  alfo 
all  men,  whether  they  believe  in  this  life  or  not,  fhall  in 
like  manner  reign  in  life  eternal.  But  who  does  not  fee, 
that  this  confequence  hy  no  means  foUovvS  from  the  pre- 
iiiifes  ? 

Althoijgh 


r^4  ^^*   ^^^  Argument  from 

Altiiougfi  Dr.  C.  fiippofes  '^  this  therefore''*  [in 
verfe  iSth,]  '^is  the  fame  which  began  the  12th  verfe  :"— ^ 
yet  he  allows^  *'  it  will  make  no  elTential  difFerence  in  the 
^•'  apoiHe's  reafoning,  if  we  Ihould  fuppofe,  that  the  i8tli 
'^  and  19th  varies  introduced  by  c^p*  ot^v,  are  a  conclu- 
*'  fion  from  the  three  foregoing  verfes  :'^*  And  it  is 
evident  by  the  Doctor's  own  difcourfe,  that  hehimfelf  was 
fall  in  the  opinion,  that  the  i8th  and  19th  verfes,  are  a 
conclurion  from  the  three  preceding  verfes,  though  he 
was  of  the  opinion  thatthofe  three  verfes,  are  an  ^'  inter- 
^^  POSF.D  parenthefis/'  Let  the  reader  notice  the  follow- 
ing paiFage ;  *^  The  view  of  the  apoftle  in  interpofmg 
«*'  thefe  verfes''  [the  15th,  i6th,  and  17th,]  *^  was. that 
'^  he  might  argue  from  the  gift  in  this  abounding  fenfe, 
*'  when  he  came  to  profecute  the  comparifon between  Adam 

^^  and  Chrill And  if  the  gift  through  Chrifl  might  be 

'^  fuppofed  to  abound  beyond  the  lapfe,  in  the  75th,  i6th, 
^'  and  17th  verfes,  why  not  in  the  1 8th  and  19th  ?"f 

Indeed  the  Doctor  himlelf  allows,  that  the  ^// men  m 
the  latter  part  of  the  1 8th  verfe,  is  no  more  cxtenfive, 
than  they  which  receive  abimdatice  of  grace  in  the  17th  verfe. 
But  he  fuppofes  that  the  latter  expreffion  is  equally  extend- 
ed with  the  former,  and  that  the  former  extends  to  all 
mankind.  I  fay,  he  fuppofes  this :  but  his  opponents  in 
this  controverfy  fuppo/e  the  contrary  ;  and  how  does  it  ap- 
pear, but  that  their  fuppofition  is  as  good  as  his  ?  If  the 
Dodor  wifned  that  v/e  ihould  give  the  preference  to  his 
iuppofition,  he  ought  to  have  given  us  fome  reafon. 

The  Doctor  with  the  help  of  a  *^  learned  friend"  has 
given  us  a  long  diiTertation  on  the  17th  verfe,  and  on  the 
Greek  verb  xau.?itv«,  with  a  defign  to  prove,  that  0;  xa/^> 
■^xvav^z,  they  who  receive,  mean  not  tliofe  who  receive  the 
grace  of  God  a^ively,  voluntarily  and  with  a  heart  to  im- 
prove it  ;  but  thofe  who  are  the  *^  objects  of  this  grace," 
^•'  or  the  perfons  upon  whom  it  is  bellowed."  But  this  is 
altogether  immaterial  in  the  prefent  difpute.  By  the  a- 
bundance  of  grace  Dr.  C.  underflands  the  fiboumling  advan-r 

iage  by  Chrift^  terminating  in  a  reign  in  life. Now  it  will 

be  granted  on  all  hands,  that  they  on  whom  this  grace  is 
beftowed,  v/ill  be  favcd.  Indeed  the  very  exprelfion, 
reigning  in  life,  implies  falvation.  Thofe  therefore  on 
whom  this  grace  is  beflowed^  will  as  certainly  and  as  con-^ 

feffedl/ 

;^  P.  67.   t  P-  6a 


Rom.   V.    12,   ^c,  conjidcrcd.  16^ 

feffedly  be  faved,  as  thofe  who  cheerfully  receive  and  im- 
prove the  grace  of  God.  All  the  queftion  is,  and  a  very 
important  one  it  is,  whether  this  abounding  grace  termina- 
ting in  a  reign  in  life,  be  beilov/ed  on  ail  mdn.  That  it 
is  preached  or  offered  to  all  men,  is  granted.  But  that  it 
is  fo  communicated  to  all,  as  to  fecure  their  reign  in  hfe, 
is  a  different  idea,  and  is  the  main  fubjecl  of  this  contro- 
veriy . 

So  that  all  the  labours  of  Dr.  C.  and  his  ^^  ingenious 
''  friend,''  to  fettle  the  meaning  of  rc're'/Y'f,  A^.w.'^«va>,  con- 
tribute nothing  to  eflablilli  this  point.  That  all  men  in  the 
latter  part  of  verfe  i8th,  mean  the  whole  human  race.  So 
lonp-  as  the  Doctor  p-rants,  that  the  words  nil  men.  verfe 
1 8th,  are  not  more  extenfive  than  they  which  receive  a- 
bundance  of  grace,  verfe  17th;  and  fo  long  as  he  has  not 
proved,  that  they  which  receive  abundance  of  grace,  fo  as 
to  reign  in  eternal  life,  mean  the  whole  human  race;  fo 
long  nothing  is  done  to  prove  univerfal  falvation,  from 
the  ufe  of  the  words  all  men,  verfe  18th.  To  fay,  that: 
they  which  receive  abundance  of  grace  mean  all  mankind, 
becaufe  that  exprelTion  is  equally  extenfive  as  the  words 
all  men  in  the  1 8th  verfe,  is  a  mere  begging  of  the  queftion. 
It  is  in  the  firfb  place  to  fuppofe  and  not  to  prove,  that  the 
words  all  men  mean  all  mankind  ;  and  then  by  them  to 
prove,  that  alfo  they  ivkich  receive  abundance  of  grace,  mean 
all  mankind. 

The  univerfal  term  all  nie}i,  verfe  18th,  is  by  the  for- 
mer part  of  the  chapter  limited  to  thofe  who  are  jufiified 
hy  faith;  who  have  peace  with  God,  and  v/ho  joy  in  God, 
through  Chrifl,  as  having  received  reconciiiaiion.  Dr« 
C's  opinion  was,  that  the  1 8th  verfe  is  but  the  full  expref- 
lion  of  the  fentence  left  imperfefl  in  the  12th  verfe,  and 
that  the  therefore  in  the  bep-inning;  cfthe  loth  verfe  '^  is 
**  the  fame  which  began  the  12th  verfe. "^'^  1  he  i8th 
verfe  then  is  an  immediate  conclufion  fi  om  the  verfes  pre- 
<:eding  the  12th,  efpecialiy  from  the  nth.  Nov/  the  be- 
lievers in  endlefs  puniihment  hold,  that  in  ail  that  part  of 
the  chapter,  from  the  beginning  to  the  i2tli  verle^  the  a- 
poftle  had  been  fbcaking  of  the  privileges  of  believers  on- 
ly,' and  not  thofe  privilep-es  which  beloup-  to  all  mankind. 
And  to  infer  from  thofe  privileges  which  are  pecuhar  to 
believers,  that  all  mankind  will  be  faved^  is  to  infer  a  ecu- 

iequcnce^j 

.*   P.  67. 


l66  Docior    C'a  a?-gu7n^nt  from 

fequence,  v/hich  is  by  no  means  contained  in  tke  pi'eiiiiies  : 
and  fuch  reafoning  ought  never  to  be  imputed  to  ariy  man 
of  Paul's  found  judgment,  much  lefs  to  him^  an  inipired  a- 
poftle. 

To  illuflrate  this  matter,  permit  nie  to  defcend  to  par- 
ticulars. Verfe  ifl,  believers  are  laid  to  be  juftified  by 
faith  and  to  have  peace  with  God  :  verfe  2d,  tohaveaccefsby 
faith  into  the  grace  of  the  gofpcl  and  to  rejoice  (or  glory)  in 
the  hope  of  the  glory  of  God  ;  verfe  3d,  to  glory  in  tri- 
bulations :  verfe  5th,  to  have  the  love  of  God  ihed  abroad 
in  their  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghcil;  :  verfe  8th,  it  is  faidthat 
God  commendeth  his  love  towards  believers,  in  that  Chrift 
died  for  them  :  verfe  9th,  that  believers  are  judiiied  by 
Chrifl's  blood,  and  faved  from  Vv'rath  through  hiin  :  verfe 
loth,  that  believers  are  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of 
Chrift  and  faved  by  his  life:  verfe  lith,  that  believers 
glory  in  God  through  Chrift,  by  whom  they  hiive  received 

the  atonement  or  reconciliation. 'Now  wliat  is  the  con- 

lequence  really  folio v/ing  from  thefe  premiilss,  afcribing 
to  believers  thsfe  peculiar  and  exclufive  privileges?  Is  it 
that  by  the  righteoufnefs  of  Chrift  the  free  gift  unto  juf- 
tification  of  life,  is  come  upon  all  mankind,  believers  and 
unbelievers  ?  By  no  means  :  any  man,  without  the  aid  of 
infpiration,  would  be  aihamcd  to  draw  fuch  a  confequence 
from  fuch  preinifes.  The  only  juft  confequence  of  thefe 
premiies,  is  that  which  has .  been  generally  taken  to  be 
the  meaning  of  the  1 8th  verfe  ;  viz,  That  as  by  the  of- 
fence of  oriC,  Adim,  judgment  to  condemnation  came 
upon  all  mankijid  who  were  his  i'eed  ;  even  io  by  the 
righteoufnefs  of  one^  Jefus  Chriil,  the  free  gift  unto  juf- 
tiiication  of  life,  came  upon  all  his  iced,  who  are  believers 
onby,  and  who  are  the  only  pcrfons  of  whom  the   apoftle 

had  been  fpeaking  in    the  premiies. May   I   not   now 

adopt  the  fa m,e  bold  language  v/hich  Dr.  C.  often  ufcs 
concerning  his  comments  on  fcripture,  that  no  other  fenfe 
than  this,  can  be  put  on  this  i8th  verfe  without  making 
the  apofUe  argue  inconciufively  i* 

I  KNOW  very  v/ell  that  the  Doctor  underflcod  difter- 
ently  the  v/hole  paiTage  from  the  beginning  of  this  chap- 
ter to  the  1 2th  verfe.  But  as  his  whole  argument  from 
Rom.  V.  12,  to  the  end,  in  the  prefent  view  of  it,  de- 
pends on  his  different  conftrutftion  oi'  verfe  i— 12  ;  it  is  not 
fuiTicicnt  to  f;iy,    th:it  the  Doctor  zirJei-J/ood  that   paiTage 

diffcrciTtiv, 


Rom.  y.   12,  CT.  conJiJered.  f^y 

difFerently,  or  that  it  is  capable  of  a  different  conftrudlion. 
It  niufc  be  fhown  that  it  is  not  capable  of  the  conilru61ioii 
which  is  given  above  ;  and  that  the  Dod:or\s  conftruftion 
mull  be  the  true  one.  Let  us  therefore  attend  to  his  con- 
Ifrudion  and  his  reafons  in  fupport  of  it. 

The  conftruiftion  is,  that  the  lad  verfe  of  the  preceding 
chapter,  the  6ih,  7th,  8th,  9th,  loth,  verfes,  and  the 
latter  part  of  the  nth  verfe  of  this  chapter,  are  fpoken  of 
all  mankind.  The  reafons  which  he  alTigns  for  fuch  an 
imderiianding  of  thofe  verfes,  are 

(i.)  That  in  the  6th  verfe  Chrif^  is  faid  to  die  for  the 
u'dgodly.'^  But  if  we  fnould  alTert,  that  hy  the  ungodly 
here  are  meant  thofe  only,  who  aftcrvv-ard  and  during 
this  life  become  godly  or  believers,  though  Chrilt  died  for 
them  while  ungodly  or  confidering  them  as  ungodly,  the 
Doflor  has  given  no  confutation  of  fuch  a  conftruction. 
Therefore  he  had  no  right  toexpeft,  that  it  would  be  reject- 
ed by  an}'-  one  who  fliould  choofe   to  adopt  it. Or  if  we 

allow,  that  Chrift  did  die  for  all  men  in  this  fenfe,  that  he 

died  to  introduce  a  diii3enfation  cf  o-race  which  fhould  offer 

.      .  .      *-' 

falvation  to  all,  and  invite  all  to  it,   and  to  ufe  Dr.  C^s  own 

exprelTion,  to  put  all  into  falvahle  cir  cum  fiances  ;  nothing 
will  hence  follow  favourable  to  the  actual  falvation  of  all 
men,  or  to  the  Doctor's  argument  from  Rom.  V.  12,  &:c. 
It  will  not  follow,  that  all  v/ill  accept  the  invitations  to 
falvation  and  acl  upon  them.  Still  the  "jje  and  us,  which 
occur  fo  often  from  the  lil:  to  the  12th  verfe,  and  parti- 
cularly in  verfe  6th,  may  mean  believers  only. 

(2.)  '^  It  is  a  grofs  miicake  to  think,  that  the  apcflle  in 
this  9th  verfe  is  fpeaking  of  that  jurtification  he  had  in 
the  lit  verfe  conne^Tted  with  faith  ;  and  for  this  decifive 
reafon,  becaufe — as  I'alvation  from  wrath  is  one  thing 
clTentially  included  in  that  juftification  which  is  the  refult 
*^  of  true  faith  ;  it  vv'culd  be  ridiculous  to  aro-ue,  murh 
^^  more  being  juilified,  meaning  hereby    this  juflincation, 

*^  we  fiiall  be    faved  from  wrath. '^f But  did  Dr.  C. 

entertain  the  opinion,  that  juilincaticn  and  falvation  are 
one  and  the  far/ie  ?  Abraham  believed  God  and  it  was 
counted  to  him  for  riorhteoufnefs  :  he  was  then  uiftiiied  : 
but  he  did  not  then  receive  complete  falvation.  Believers 
being  in  this  life  juib/ied  hy  faith,  have  peace  with  God^ 
according  to  the  ifl:  verfe  of  this  chapter,  as  Dr.  C.  allows. 

Yrr 


P-  35.  t 


168  Docior  Os  argument  from. 

Yet  they  are  not  in  this  life  Aived  from  wrath  in  the  fenfc 
they  will  be,  at  the  day  of  judgment.  Therefore,  how- 
ever Dr.  C.  afferts  it,  it  does  not  appear  to  be  ridiculous 
to  argue,  that  believers  being  in  this  life  juftified  by  faith 
in  the  blood  of  Chnfl:,  fliall  at  the  day  of  judgment,  much 
more  be  favcd  from  wrath  through  him.  Is  it  ridiculous 
to  argue,  that  Abraham  being  juililied  by  faith  here,  will 
much  more  be  faved  from  wrath  hereafter  ? 

(3)  *^  TiiE  particle  vt'V,  now,  conne6ted  with  the  jufli- 
'-  ticarion  here  treated  of,  is  emphatical,  making  it  clear^ 
*'  that  the  apoftie  is  not  to  be  underfi:ood  of  juftihcation  at 
^^  the  great  day ;  but  of  juftincaticn  that  had  at  that  time 

''  been  completed. *'' Nobody  pretends,    that  the  a- 

poille  means  a  juflitication  at  the  great  day.  It  is  allowed 
on  all  hands,  that  he  means  a  iufliiicalion,  which  had  at 
that  prefent  time  been  completed.  But  what  follows 
hence  ?  Did  Dr.  C.  imagine,  that  believers  are  not  in  a 
proper  fenfe  completely  juiliiied  in  this  life  ?  And  that  the 
jurdiication  of  Abraham,  Rahab,&c.  was  in  no  proper  fenfe 
com.pleted  before  their  death,  or  before  the  great  day? 
Concerning  the  former,  it  is  cxpreffly  faid,  that  he  believ- 
ed God,  and  it  ivas  counted  to  him  for  righteoufnefs — that 
faith  uvi"/ reckoned  to  Abraham  for  righteoufnefs,  cmc,  and 
concerning  the  latter,  ivas  not  Rahab  the  harlot  juftified^ 
o:c  r  Nor  is  it  material  to  the  prefent  purpofe,  whether 
thisjirrtiiication  of  Rahab  mean  a  jullification  by  God,  or  a 
manifefcative  jufliflcation,  proving,  that  ihe  was  juilified  in 
in  the  fight  of  God  ;  becaufe.  the  latter,  equally  as  the  for- 
]ner,  implies  that  flie  was  then  juflified  in  the  fight  of 
God. 

That  believers  are  in  this  life  juftified  in  a  peculiar 
^ciikf  is  further  taught  in  i  Cor.  VI,  11,  **  And  fuch  were 
*'  feme  of  you  :  but  ye  are  vv^aflied,  but  ye  are  fandified, 
*'  but  y^  are  jiiftlpecl  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus,  and 
^'  by  the  fpirit  of  our  God.*' — I  prefume  it  will  be  grant- 
ed, that  pardon  or  forgivenefs  is  an  efiential  part  of  juftifi- 
cation,  and  that  when  a  man  is  forgiven  by  God,  he  is  juf- 
tified  by  God.  But  that  behevers  are  forgiven  in  this 
life,  is  evident  from  the  following  texts.  Mat.  IX,  2, 
*^  Son,  thy  fms  be  forgiven  thee.'^  See  alfo,  Mark,  II, 
5,  and  Luke  V,  20, — Col.  11,  i^.  '^  And  you  being  dead 
**  in  your  lins,  and  the  uncircumcifion  of  your  fiefli,  hath 

**  fee 


*  I'.  V^ 


Rom*  V,    II,  cnnjidered,  169 

^•^  he  quickened  together  with  him,  having  forgiven  you 
*^  all  trefpalTes."  i  John  II.  12,  ''  I  write  unto  you, 
^'  little  children,  becaufe  your  fins  are  forgiven  you,  for 
^'  his  name's  fake.'' 

But  why  need  I  produce  proofs  of  what  Dr.  C.  grants, 
though  it  feems  in  his  comment  on  the  pth  verfe,  he 
had  forgotten  it?  In  his  comment  on  the  ilt  verfe,  &c, 
he  fpeaks  of  ^^  the  jullified  by  faith,  as  glorying  in  hope 

''■  of  the  glory  of  God and  in    their    fufFerings 

^'  becaufe  they  knew  that  tribulation  worketh  patience, 
*^  and  patience  experience,  and  experience  hope."  The 
Doclor,  as  the  apoftle  did  before  him,  evidently  confiders 
thefe  things  as  taking  place  in  this  life.  Indeed  the  con- 
trary cannot  be  pretended  without  the  groffefl  abfurdity. 
He  alfo  confiders  thefe  views  and  aiFeclions  as  peculiar  to 
t^Q  jufiified  by  faith.  Therefore  fome  men  are  completely 
juftified  by  faith  in  this  life  :  at  leafl  fo  completely,  as  to 
render  the  9th  verfe  properly  applicable  to  them.  There- 
fore his  argument  from  vi^v,  noiVy  that  the  juftification  fpo- 
ken  of  in  the  9th  verfe,  is  not  peculiar  to  believers,  proves 
nothing. 

Beside,  Dr.  C.  could  not,  without  the  moft  glaring 
abfurdity  and  inconfiftency,  underftand  this  9th  verfe  of 
all  mankind  :  becaufe  the  perfons  here  referred  to,  fliall 
hefavsd  from  wrath.  But  according  to  the  Docuor  fome 
men  will  not  be  faved  from  wrath,  they  will  fuiTer  all  that 
v/rath  to  which  they  are  liable  on  the  footing  of  ftrift  juf- 
tice  :  they  will  fuiFer  according  to  their  fms,  according  to 
their  crimes,  and  their  deferts,  and  fo  that  the  whole 
threatened  penalty  will  be  executed  on  them. 

(4)  DocTo]^  C.  argues,  that  becaufe  it  is  faid  in  verfe 
loth,  when  v/&  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  ; 
by  the  we  here,  we  mull:  underftand,  not  believers  only, 
but  all  mankind  ;  or  becaufe,  as  the  Doctor  paraphrafes 
the  words,  while  they  were  enemies,  they  were  reconciled; 
therefore  this  reconciliation  cannot  mean  the  cordial  re— 
conciliation  of  true  believers.*  The  force  of  this  argu— 
ment  wdioUy  depends  on  this  fuppofition,  that  the  perfons 
here  intended,  were  reconciled,  and  yet  after  the  recon- 
ciliation was  efFe6ted,  they  ftill  remained  enemies.  But 
what  necelhty  of  this  glofs  of  the  text?  Why  may  it  not 
mean  this  merely,  that  Vv'hen  the   perfons  here  intended 

Z4  were 


17«  Do^9r  Cs  argumsjii  from 

were  going  on  in  their  enmity,  they  v/ere  arrefted  by  the 
grace  of  God,  reclaimed  from  their  enmity,  and  reconciled 
to  God  ?  There  appears  to  be  nothing  ablurd  or  unufual  in 
this  exprellion  underftood  in  this  lenfe.  If  it  ihonld  be 
faid,  When  a  fubjecl  was  v/aging  war  agairil  his  fovereign, 
and  was  in  actual  battle  with  the  troops  of  his  fovereign, 
he  was  reconciled  to  him  ;  the  exprellion  would  not  natu- 
rally imply ^  and  no  man  would  underftand  it  to  mean,  that 
jiotwithilanding  the  reconciliation,  he  ftill  continued  a  fix- 
ed and  mahcious  enemy  to  his  fovereign  No  man  would 
understand  the  expreffion  in  any  other  fenfe  than  this,  that 
in  the  midft  of  the  v%\ir  and  battle,  he  was  flruck  v  ith  con- 
vidion  of  his  wickednefs,  and  became  cordially  reconciled 
to  his  fovereign. 

If  the  Doctor  depended  on  the  original  v/ords  ^-y}-r^'  "'=« 
Kai>ixx«^}iyu?i',  to  make  out  that  the  reconciliation  here  in- 
tended took  place,  while  the  perfons  fpoken  of  remained 
enemies  ;  he  might  as  conclufively  have  argued,  that  the 
perfon  mentioned  in  Joh.  IX,  25,  (li-s'^!^;  ^^v  ^xfr:T&.)  had  his 
iight  reftored  to  him,  while  he  remained  perfectly  blind  ; 
and  that  Saul  went  to  Damafcus,  with  the  expectation  of 
bringing  certain  perfons  to  Jerufalem,  who  at  the  fame 
time  ihould  ftill  remain  at  Damafcus,  (a^a-y  '^oo?  ex-j/a-?  cy':^-] 
Aa.  XXII,  5. 

At  length  Vv'e  come  to  the  Doctor's  expofition  of  the 
I  ith  verfe,  to  which  his  criticifm,  on  all  the  preceding  ver- 
les  refers.  He  tells  us.  The  meaning  plainly  and  briefly  is, 
^*  We  believers  glory  in  God  of  our  intereft,  and  relation 
'^  to  him,  as  our  covenant  God,  through  Jefus  Chrilt, 
*'  by  whom  vre  were  fo  changed  in  our  itate,  "jjh'ile  ene- 
**  mies — in  comm.on  with  the  reft  of  mankind,  as  to  be  ca- 
*'  pable  of — final  juftification  upon  the  foot  of  faith." 
On  this  it  may  be  remarked.  That  if  by  '*  intereft  in 
<^  and  covenant  relation  to  God,''  Dr.  C.  meant  any  thing 
different  from  that  itate.of  reconciliation,  which  is  obtain- 
ed by  Chrift,  and  which  is  mentioned  in  the  latter  part  of 
this  verfe,  it  does  not  appear,  that  the  text  gives  him  any 
warrant  to  infert  that  intereft,  &c.  in  his  comment,  as  a 
ground  of  rejoicing  or  glorying.  I  appeal  to  the  reader, 
-whether  the  moft  natural  {&n(e  of  the  text  be  not  this. 
We  believers  glory  in  God,  through  our  Lord  Jeius  Chrift, 
as  having  by  Chrift  received  reconciliation ;  or  /cr  this 
reafon^  that  of  God's  rich  grace  through  Chrift;  we  have 

obtained 


Rdm,  V,  l^  conjidered*  iji 

obtained  reconciliation  with  God.  Otherwife,  why  is  the 
circumftance  of  our  receiving  the  reconciliation  by  Chriit 
mentioned  in  this  connection  with  our  glorying  in  God  ? 
Befide,  to  glory  in  God  as  our  covenant  God,  and  to  glory 
in  him  on  account  of  our  reconciliation  with  him,  is  one 
and  the  fame  thing. 

The  glorying  of  which  the  apoftle  fpeaks,  is  through 
Chrifi: ;  and  this  implies,  that  it  is  on  account  of  fome  be- 
nefit or  blefTmg  received  through  Chrift  :  and  what  this 
blefling  is,  which  the  apoRle  had  in  view,  and  which  he 
confidered  as  the  ground  of  glorying  to  believers,  he  im- 
mediately explains  in  thefe  words,  hy  ivhom  ive  have  re- 
ceived the  ?'econcUiatlo-n,  that  reconciliation  of  which  he 
had  been  fpeaking  in  the  loth  verfe. But  if  the  recon- 
ciliation, which  the  apoftle  makes,  the  great  ground  of  re- 
joicing or  glorying  to  believers,  be,  as  Dr.  C.  holds,  com- 
mon to  believers  and  unbelievers  ?  then  the  great  ground 
of  glorying  to  believers  is  not  any  blelhng  peculiar  to  be- 
lievers ;  but  fomething  common  to  all  mankind ;  and 
therefore  unbelievers  have  j Lilt  the  fame  reafon  to  glory 
in  that  blefTmg  as  believers  ;  which  is  no  more  credible 
tlian  the  doctrine  of  univei  fal  falvation,  and  wants  as  much 
proof  as  that  doctrine  ;  and  therefore  cannot  be  admitted 
as  any  evidence  of  the  truth  of  that  doclrine. 

I  BEG  the  reader's  patience,  while  I  make  a  few  other 
remarks  on  Dr.  C*s  coniirudion  of  the  pallage  from  Rom. 
IV.  25,  to  Chap.  V.  12;  and  I  wilh  the  reader  to  keep 
before  him  the  paiTage  itfelf,  while  he  follov/s  me  in  theie 
remarks.  - 

This  whole  pafTage  is  exprefTed  in  the  firit  perfon,  and 
is  manifeftly  one  continued  difcourfe.  Yet  Dr.  C.  was  of 
the  opinion,  that  in  this  fhort  pafTage  of  only  twelve  ver« 
fes,  the  perfons,  or  the  ive,  us  and  our,  v/hich  occur  in  al- 
mofl  every  fentence,  are  fliifted  no  lefs  than  four  times. 
In  the  laft  verfe  of  Chap.  IV,  it  was  his  opinion,  that  all 
men  are  intended :  that  from  the  firft  to  the  fixth  verfe  of 
Chapter  V,  only  believers  are  intended  :  that  from  the  6th 
to  the  nth  verfe  all  men  are  intended  :  that  in  the  former 
part  of  the  nth  verfe  believers  only  are  intended  :  that 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  i  ith  verfe  all  men  are  again  inten- 
ded. I  beg  leave  to  fet  down  this  whole  pafTage,  accor- 
ding to  the  Doctor's  explanation,  together  with  the  text 
itfelf:— Thus 

T£XT» 


I7X 


Do^Qr  Cs  argument  from 


Text. 
CHAP.  IV.  25. 

Who  was  delivered  for  eur 
offences  a?td  raifed  again  for 
our  juflification. 


CHAP.   V.   I. 
Therefore y   bei?ig  jiiftified 
hy  faith,  'uje  have  peace  'with 
God,  through  our  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift. 

2.  By  whom  alfo  we  have 
accefs  hy  faith  into  this  grace 
wherein  vje  //and,  and  re- 
joice in  hope  of  the  glory  of 

God. 

3.  And  not  only  fo,  hut 
we  glory  in  tribulations  al/h, 
knowing  that  tribulation 
worketh  patience; 

4.  j^nd  patience  experi- 
ence ;  and  expcriejjce  hope  ; 

5.  And  hope  maketh  i2ot 
afhamed,  hecaufe  the  love  of 
God  is  fhed  abroad  in    our 
hearts   by    the    Holy    Ghoft 
which  is  given  unto  us. 

6.  For  when  we  were 
with  out  fir  ength,  in  due  time 
Chrift  died  for  the  ungodly. 


7.  For  fcarcely  for  a 
7'ighteous  man  will  one  die  : 
Yet  peradventure  for  a  good 
man  fome 'W9idd  even  dare  to 
die. 

8.  But  God  commendeth 
his  love  towards  \\s,  in  that 
while  we  were  yet  J'mnerSy 
Chrifi  died  j or  us. 


Dr.  Cs  Explanation. 

Who  was  delivered  tp 
put  all  men  into  a  capacity 
to  obtain  the  pardon  of 
their  offences,  and  was 
raifed  again  to  put  them 
into  a  capacity  of  being 
juftified  at  the  great  day. 

Therefore  believers  be- 
ing juftified  by  faith,  have 
peace  with  God,  through 
our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift.  By 
whom  alfo  believers  have 
accefs  by  faith  into  this 
grace  wherein  they  ftand, 
and  rejoice  in  hope  of  the 
glory  of  God. 

And  not  only  fo,  but  bc-^ 
lievers  glory  in  tribulations 
alfo,  knowing  that  tribula- 
tion worketh  patience  ;  and 
patience  experience  and  ex- 
perience hope  :  and  hope 
njaketh  not  alhamed,  be- 
caufe  the  love  of  God  is 
ilied  abroad  in  the  hearts 
of  believers^  by  the  Holy  ^ 
Ghoft,  which  is  given  un- 
to them. 

For  when  all  men  were 
without  ftrength,  in  due 
time  Chrift  died  for  them 
all,  while  they  were  un- 
godly. 

For  fcarcely  for  a  righte- 
ous man  would  one  die  : 
Yet  peradventure  for  a 
good  man,  fome  would 
even  dare  to  die. 

But  God  commendeth 
his  love  towards  all  men, 
in  that  while  they  v/ere  yet 
fmners,  Chrift  died  for 
them  all,  9.  ¥iuch 


Rom*   V.    12,  (;c*  confidercd. 


173 


Text. 

9.  Much  more  then  being 

now  jujljfied  by  his  blood,  lue 

/hall  be  faved  from   ivrath 


throuorh  him. 


10.  For  If  ivhen  we  were 
enemies y  we  were  reconciled 
to  God  by  the  death  of  his 
Son  :  much  more  being  re- 
conciledy  we  fhall  be  faved 
hy  his  life. 


1 1 .  ylnd  not  only  fs  ;  but 
we  alfo  joy  in  God,  through 
cur  Lord  Jefus  ChrlJ},  by 
whom  we  have  now  received 
the  atonement,  {or  the  recon- 
ciUation.~\ 


Dk.  C's  Explanation. 

Much  more  then  all  men 
being  now  by  the  blood  of 
Chrift  brought  into  a  capa- 
city or  pojffibility  of  falva- 
tion,  fhail  in  fa6l  be  faved 
from  wrath  through  Chrift. 

For  if  when  all  men  v/ere 
enemies,  they  were  by  the 
death  of  Chrift  brought  in- 
to a  poffhtlity  of  falvation  ; 
much  more  being  brought 
into  a  poffdAlity  of  falva- 
tion, thole  c.ll  men  Ihall  be 
equally  faved  by  the  Hfe  of 
Chrift. 

And  not  only  fo ;  but 
believers  alfo  glory  in  God 
through  our  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift,  by  whom  all  men 
have  received  tht  pojfbility 
of  falvation. 


How  ftrange,  that  in  a  continued  difcourfe  all  in  the 
firft  perfon  plural,  the  we  and  us  fhould  be  changed  back- 
ward and  forward  four  times  !  What  torturing  of  the 
fcripture  is  here  !  At  this  rate,  what  difcourfe  in  the 
world  will  be  intelligible  ?  How  will  it  be  poflible  for  any 
man,  antl  efpecially  tor  the  common  people,  for  whom  as 
well  as  for  the  learned,  the  fcriptures  v/ere  written,  to  un- 
derftand   them  ? 

^\JT  this  is  not  all.  By  this  various  reference  of  the 
pronouns  we  and  us,  the  reafoning  of  the  apoftle  is  render- 
ed utterly  inconclufive,  in  almoft  every  ftep  of  it.  Thus 
the  firft  verle  of  the  fifth  Chapter  is  m.anifeftly  brought  in 
by  the  apoftle,  as  a  confequence  drawn  from  the  laft  verfe 
of  the  preceding  Chapter.  But  from  the  confideration, 
that  Chrift  died  and  rofe  to  put  all  men  into  a  capacity  of  ob- 
taining juftification  at  the  great  day,  it  by  no  means  fol- 
lows, that  believers  are  mnv  juftified  by  faith,  and  have 
peace  with  God.  Verfe  9th,  if  it  be  ever  fo  true,  that  all 
men  are  put  into  a  poffibility  of  falvation,  it  by  no  means 
follows,  that  all  men  will  be  actually  faved.     It  no  more 

follows. 


174  Doctor  C^s  argument  from 

follows,  than  from  the  opportunity  given  all  men,  of  ob- 
taining fah^ation  immediately  after  this  life,  it  follows, 
that  all  will  actually  be  faved  immediately  after  this  life  3 
Or  than  frcni  the  opportunity  of  entering  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan, given -all  that  generation,  which  came  out  of  Egypt, 
it  followed,  that  all  that  generation  would  in  fad  enter  that 
land  :  Or  than  from  the  opportunity  given  any  man  to  be- 
come rich  or  honorable,  it  follows,  that  he  will  in  fact  be- 
come rich  or  honorable.  The  fame  obfervation  is  equally 
applicable  to  the  loth  verfe.  What  was  before  obferved 
concerning  the  nth  verfe,  underftood  in  Dr.  C's  fenfe, 
needs  not  to  be  repeated. 

But  what  is  of  chief  importance  is,  that  according  to 
the  Doctor's  conftrudtion,  there  is  no  argumentative  con- 
nection between  the  nth  and  the  12th,  or  which  is  the 
fame  thing,  betv/eenthe  nth  and  the  iSthverfes.  If  the 
Do6tor' s  i'enfe  of  the  nth  and  i8th  verfes  be  true,  the 
latter  is  no  juft  confequence  from  the  former.  The  Doc- 
tor's {t^A\Q  of  the  nth  verfe  is,  that  all  men  throueh  Chrift 
have  received  a  polhbility  of  final  falvation  ;  and  his  fenfe 
of  the  1 8th  verfe  is,  that  all  men  will  a6tually  be  faved. 
But  if  it  be  ever  fo  true,  that  all  men  have  received  a  pof- 
libility  or  opportunity  of  final  falvation,  it  does  not  fol- 
low, thnt  all  will  ^dually  be  faved.  Yet  as  the  12th  or 
18th  verfe,  (the  intermediate  verfes  being  a  parenthefis) 
is  a  deduction  from  the  iith^  the  Lift  of  the  proportions 
juft  exprelTed,  fliould  juftly  follow  from  the  other;  other- 
wife  the  apoflle  argues  inconclufively.  And  as  the  Doc- 
tor's glofs  of  thefe  two  verfes  makes  the  apoflle  reafon  in- 
concluiively,  we  may  be  fure,  that  he  has  not  given    the 

true  fenfe  of  them. But  according  to  the  common  un— 

derftanding  of  thefe  verfes,  the  reafoning  is  clear  and  cer- 
tain. For  if  believers  have  obtained  through  Chrift  a  cor- 
dial reconciliation  and  peace  with  God,  then  certainly  thofe 
fame  believers  will,  in  the  fame  way,  obtain  eternal  life 
and  falvation. 

That  the  12th,  and  therefore  the  i8th  verfe,  is  an  in- 
ference from  the  nth,  is,  I  think,  manifcft  from  a  careful 
perufal  of  the  pafTage,  and  it  is  at  leaft  implicitly  granted 
by  Dr.  C.  He  exprefily  fays,  that  the  therefore  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  1 8th  verfe,  *^  is  the  fame  which  began  the 
*•  1 2th  verfe.  The  protafis  or  firil  part  of  the  compari- 
^*  fbn  was  there  entered  upon,  bat  left   unfiniihed.     ■'Tis 

«■  here 


Rom.  Vf   12,   drc.  confidered.  \j^ 

'*'  here  refumed,  I  fay,  therefore,  as  by  the  ofFence  of  one 
*^  man''  &c.  *  And  his  paraphrafe  of  the  i8th  verfe  is  in 
thefe  words  :  '^  1  fay,  therefore,  (to  refiime  now  and  pur- 
'*  fue  the  comparifon  I  began  in  the  rath  verfe)  as  it  was 
'^  by  the  lapfe  of  the  one  man,  Adam,"  &c.f  The  Doc- 
tor alfo  quotes  Dr.  Doddridge's  aifertion,  that  *'  the  12th 
^*  verfe  is  an  inference  from  the  nth,"  and  does  not  con- 
tradid  that  affertion,  though  he  labours  through  a  num- 
ber of  pages,  to  affix  a  different  fenfe  from  that  of  Dr. 
Doddridge,  to  the  nth  verfe,  that  thus  he  may  evade  the 
conftruclion  of  the  i8th  verfe,  vvdiich  Dr.  Doddridp-e  had 
given,  and  eftabhfh  his  ov/n.  But  all  this  v/as  needlefs, 
if  indeed  the  12th  and    i8th  verfes    are  not.  an   inference 

from  the  nth. Nor  is   there   any  inconfiftence  in  the 

opuiion,  that  the  18th  verfe  may  be  at  the  fame  time  an  in- 
ference from  the  nth  and  from  the  15th,  i6th  and  17th 
verfes.  True  and  fufficient  premifes  or  reafons  of  the  pro- 
pofition  of  the  i8th  verfe,  may  be  contained  in  the  nth 
verfe.  Thofe  reafons  maybe  explained,  and  even  others 
added  in  the  15th,  i6th  and  17th  verfeS;,  which  fall  into  a 
parenthefis  ;  and  the  1 8th  verfe  may  contain  an  inference 
juftly  dtducible  from  either,  or  from  both. 

I  AM  indeed  fenfible,  that  Dr.  C.  in  his  paraphrafe  of 
the  1 2th  verfe,  does  not  confider  it  as  an  inference  from 
the  nth  ;  but  the  nth  as  deducible  by  v/ay  of  inference 
from  the  12th,  in  this  manner  :  Becaufe  lin  and  death  came 
upon  all  men  by  Adam,  therefore  all  men  have  obtained  a 
poffibility  of  falvation  by  Chrift.  His  v^'ords  are,  **  For  this 
'*  caufe  or  reafon,  we  have  received  reconciliation  by  Jefus 
*^  Chrifl,  namely,  becaufe  as  fin  entered  into  the  world  by 
*^  the  one  man,  Adarn,':];'^  &c.  But  this  is  as  furprifmg  as  any 
part  of  Dr.  C's  truly  furprifmg  expofition  of  this  chapter. 
In  the  firft  place,  it  is  a  mere  conjecture,  unfupported 
by  any  thing,  but  pure  imagination.  In  the  fecond  place, 
to  apply  this  paraphrafe  to  the  i8th  verfe,  which  is  but 
the  full  expreffion  of  the  12th,  it  will  ftand  thus :  For 
this  caufe  or  reafon  all  men  have  received  a  poifibility  of 
falvation,  namely,  that  as  by  the  offence  of  one,  judcr. 
ment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation,  even  fo,  by  the 
righteoufnefs  of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  to  ac- 
tual falvation.     Or  more  briefly  thus  ;   The  reafon,    why 

all 
fP.  6j.     t  P.  26.     :J:P.  23. 


176  Doitor  Os  argument  from 

all  men  have  obtained  0.  poj/ibility  of  {dlvation,  is,  that  fal- 
vation  is  actually  come  upon  all  men  :  Or  to  place  the  fen- 
tence  in  its  proper  arrangement,  Salvation  is  actually  come 
upon  all  men  ;  therefore  all  men  have  received  a  poffibili- 
ty  of  falvation. On  this  reafoning  I  need  malvC  no  re- 
mark.  It  is  not  hovvev^er  probable,  that  the  Do6l:or 

wasfeniible,  that  his  paraphrafe  of  the  12th  verfe,  appli- 
ed to  the  1 8th,  would  come  to  this.  Nor  is  the  reafon 
juft  exprefled,  that  which  the  Do6lor  beheved  to  be 
the  true,  one,  why  v/e  have  received  the  reconciliation. 
But  that  which  in  the  Doclor^s  opinion  was  the  true  rea- 
ibn,  he  expreilly  declares  to  be,  ^'  That  it  was  in  fuch  a 
*'  Vvay,   viz.  by   the  offence  of  one,   that  judgment  came 

^'  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.*^' Who  is  anfwer- 

able  for  this  inconfidency,  I  need  not  inform  the  read- 
er. 

Before  I  difmifs  this  part  of  Dr.  C's  book,  I  cannot 
but.obferve,  that  he  fpeaks  of  a  double  juftification,t  the 
one  meaning  abfolutionat  the  great  day ;  the  other  mean- 
ing the  advantageous  ftate,  or  the  poffibility  of  the  falva- 
tion of  all  mankind  through  Chrift.  It  feems  then  that 
the  Doctor  had  forgotten,  that  he  had  but  a  few  pages  be- 
fore made  out  a  threefold  j unification  :  Tne  firft  kind  con- 
filling  in  the  introdufiion  to  a  capacity  or  poflibility  of  fal- 
vation through  Chrift  :  The  fecond  in  the  juftification  of 
believers,  v^^ho  have  peace  with  God  while  in  this  life  ;  fuch 
was  the  j unification  of  Abraham  :  The  third  in  abfolution 

at  the  ^reat  day. But  vv^lien  any    thing    is  abundantly 

m.ultiplied,  no  wonder  if  the  author  himfelf  of  that  multi- 
plication forgets  the  number  of  units  contained  in  his  own 
product. 

Dr.  C.  fays,  J  It  can  be  no  other  than  a  flat  contradic- 
tion to  the  exprefs  wc^i'ds  of  the  Apollle  himfelf,  to  fay 
that  in  the  latter  part  of  the  comparifon  in  the  i8th  verfe, 
the  words  all  7nen  are  not  ufed  in  the  fame  extenfive  fenfe, 
as  in  the  former  part  of  that  verfe.  This  is  indeed  a 
ftrcng,  pofitive  affertion,  but  where  is  the  reafon  to  fup— 
port  it  ?  Belide  ;  he  thought  it  no  fiat  contradidion  to 
the  exprefs  words  of  the  Apoltle,  to  fay  that  vje  in  the  former 
part  of  the  nth  verfe,  is  not  ufed  in  the  fame  extenlive 
fenfe  as  in  the  latter  part  of  that  verfe  :  nor  any  flat 
contradi^rion  to  the  words  of  our  Saviour,  to  fay,  thatthe 
word  cverlafting  is  not  ufed  in  the  fame  extenfive  fenfe  in 

the 

*P.  30.     t  P.   '^%.     X  P-  32* 


Rom,  V,   12,  6c.  cmpJefed^  \yj 

the  former  part,  as  in  the  latter  part  of  Matt.  XXV.  46, 
'^  Thefe  fhall  go  away  into  everlaOiing  punilhmenc,  but 
*^  the  righteous  into  everlafting  life/' 

But  it  is  time  we  fiiould  proceed  to  the  other  argument 
of  Dr.  C.  to  prove  that  univerfal  falvation  is  taught  in 
R.om.   V.    12,   &c.   viz. 

4.  The  advantage  by  Chrift  exceeds,  abounds  beyond, 
the   difadvantage  by  Adam.     But  unlefs  all  men  be  faved^ 

the  former  '■'■  finks  below''  the  latter.*-^ It  is  granted, 

that  the  advantage  by  Chrift,  to  thofe  who  obtain  falvation 
by  Chrii%  exceeds,  and  abounds  beyorxd,  the  difadvantage 
by  Adam.  But  the  queltion  is,  whether  this  faving  ad-^ 
Vantage  extend  to  all  thofe,  to  v»/'hom  the  difadvantage  by 
Adam  extended.  That  it  does  extend  to  all  the  fame  fub- 
jsfts  to  whom  the  difadvantage  by  4dam  extended,  is  hol- 
den  by  Dr.  C.  But  how  does  he  prove  it  ?  By  no  other* 
arguments  than  thofe  which  we  have  already  particularly 
conlidered  ;,  and  v/hether  they  be  conclufive,  is  fubmitted 
to  the  reader,- Dr.  C.  did  not  imagine,  that  the  advan- 
tage by  Chrift  w^as  more  exteniiye,  or  extended  to  a  great- 
er number  of  perfons,  than  the  difadvantage  by  Adam. 
Ke  believed,  that  they  both  extended  to  all  mankind. — ' 
Therefore,  the  fuper-abounding,  the  excefs,  or  furplufage 
of  the  advantage  by  Chrift',  does  not  confuft  in  the  extent 
of  it,  but  in  fomething  elfe,  and  that  Ibmething  elfe  may 
exift,  though  the  extent  as  to  the  number  of  perfons  be  the 
fame,  or  even  lefs  than  the  extent  of  the  difadvantage  by 
Adam. 

If  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  happinefs  of  the  created 
fyftem,  be  more  advanced  by  the  falvation  of  a  part  of  the 
human  race,  and  by  the  rejeclion  of  the  reft,  than  they 
would  h-ave  been,  if  Adam  had  never  fallen  ;  then  furely 
the  advantage  by  Chrift  on  the  general  fcale,does  not 
^^  fink  below"  the  difadvantage  by  A-dam  :  and  to  aifert, 
that  the  divine  glory  and  the  happinei's  of  the  created  fy- 
ftem would  be  moft  advanced  by  the  falvation  of  all   men, 

is  to  beg  material  points  inqueftion. But  if  Dr.   C. 

mean,  that  jf  all  be  not  faved  by  Chrift,  then  the  ad- 
vantage by  Chrift  to  thofe  who  fnall  be  finally  miferable, 
''  finks  below"  the  difadvantage  by  Adam  to  the  fame 
perfons  ;  I  grant  it,  and  apprehend  no  difadvantage  to  my 
caufe  by  the'conceihon.     For  it  is  granting  no  more    than 

A  a  is 

"-  P.   32  &  81,  kz. 


ijS  Do^or   €^s  argument  fram 

is  Implied  in  the  very  propofition,  which  I  endeavour  to 
defend,   that  all  men  will  not  be  faved. 

I  HAVE  now  finiflied  my  remarks  on  Dr.  C's    argument 

from  Rom.  V,  12,  &c. If  the  reader  think  I  have  been 

prolix  in  thefe  remarks,  I  hope  he  will  remember  how  pro- 
lix the  Doctor  was  in  his  argument  from  this  pafTage  ;  and 
I  prefume  he  will  not  think  it  unreafonable  to  take  up 
nineteen  pages  in  anfwering  fixty-nine. 

It  is  now  left  to  the  reader  to  judge,  whether  it  be  cer- 
tain, that  becaufe  the  word  many  in  the  former  part  of  the 
15th  and  19th  verfes  means  all  men,  it  means  the  fame  in 

the  latter  part  of  thofe  verfes  : Whether  it  be  certain, 

that  the  word  many  means  all  men,  becaufe  the  article  is 

joined   with,  it,  0/  vro/xo/,  the  7nany  : Whether  becaufe 

the  words  all  men  in  the  former  part  of  the  1 8th  verfe, 
mean  all  mankind,  they  certainly  mean  the  fame  in  the 
laiter  part  of  that  verfe  : — — Whether  becaufe  the  advan- 
tage by  Chrift  exceeds  the  difadvantage  by  Adam,  it  cer- 
tainly follow,  that  the  advantage  to  every  individual  man^ 
will  exceed  the  difadvantage  to  that  man. 


C    H    A    P.      X. 

Inijjhtchis  confidcrcd  Dr,   C^s  Ar gums nt  from  Romans 
VilL    19 — 24. 

THE  text  is,  ^^  For  the  earned  expectation  of  the  crea- 
*^  ture  waiteth  for  the  manifeflation  of  the  fons  of  God . 
^^  For  the  creature  was  made  fubjecl  to  vanity  not  willingly, 
^*  but  by  reafon  of  him  who  fubjeded  the  fame  in  hope. 
*'  Becaufe  the  creature  itfelf  alfo  fhall  be  delivered  from 
*^  rhe  bondage  of  corruption,  into  the  glorious  liberty  of 
'^  the  children  of  God.  For  we  know  that  the  whole  crea- 
*'  tion  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now. 
And  not  only  they,  but  ourfelves  alfo  which  have  the 
iirrfc  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  ev^en  we  ourfelves  groan  with- 
in ourfelves,  waiting  for  the  adoption,  to  wit,  the  re- 
demption of  our  body.'' The  wordsof  chief  import- 
ance are  thofe  of  the  21ft  verfe  ;  **  The  creature  itfelf  al. 
''  fo  ihall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption, 
^^  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God  :"   which 

arc 


Rom,  VIIL   19—24,  conJidcrcL  179 

arc  fuppofed  by  Dr.  C.  to  hold  forth  the  falvation  of  all 
men.  But  the  main  queftion  here  is,  what  is  the  meaning 
of  the  word  <:r<f^^z<r<?.  Dr.  C.  fuppofes  it  means //'e  /jw- 
man  race.  Others  fuppofe  it  means  the  whole  of  the  cre- 
ation which  was  made  for  the  fake  of  men,  and  is  fubjefted 
to  their  nfe. — Belide  the  word  creature,  the  following 
words  and  exprelhons,  ^*  manifeftation  of  the  fons  of 
<f   God" — '^  vanity" — ^^  willingly*' — <*  bondage    of   cor- 

''  ruption" are  all  underftcod  differently  by  Dr.  C.and 

by  thofe  who  believe  in  endlefs  punifliment.  Let  us  there- 
fore attend  to  them  relpedively. 

I.  The  meaning  of  the  word  >i1'<r/?,  creature  or  creation, 
is  to  be  fought.  It  may  not  be  impertinent  to  inform  the 
reader  v/ho  is  unacquainted  with  the  original,  that  the 
word  tranflated  creature  in  the  itjth,  20th  and  21ft  verfes, 
is  the  very  fame  which  in  the  22d  verfe  is  trandated  crea- 
iion ;  and  doubtlefs  whatever  be  the  meaning  of  it,  it 
ought  to  have  been  tranflated  uniformly  throughout  this 
palTage. Dr.  C.  was  of  opinion  that  it  means  all  man- 
kind or  the  rational  creation  of  this  world.  His  rcafons 
for  this  opinion  are,  that  *'  earneft  expe6iation,  groaning j 
*^  travailing  together  in  pain,  are  more  naturally  and  obvi- 
*'  oufly  applicable  to  the  rational,  than  the  inanimate''  [and 

brutal]  **  creation'' *^    that  Tras-a  k-'I/s-/?,   xh^ivhole  ere-- 

**  ation,  is  never  ufcd  (one  difputed  text  only  excepted, 
*'  Col.   I.    15.)  to  fignify  more  than  the  whole  moral  cre- 

'^  ation,   or  all   mankind" that    '*   it  would  be  highly 

'*  incongruous,  to  give  this  fl^de"  [the  whole  creation] 
"  to  the.inferior  or  lefs  valuable  part,  wholly  leaving  out 
*^  tlie  moft  excellent"  part,   mankind. 

I.   *'  Earnest  expeJIation,  groaning,  travailing  together 
*'  in  pain,    aVe  more  naturally  applicable    to   the  rational, 

*^  than  the    inanimate"  [and  brutal]  *'  creation."* If 

this  prove  any  thing,  it  will  prove  too  much  :  it  will  prove, 
that  when  in  Pfal.  CXIV,  it  is  laid  '^  The  fea  faw  it  and 
"  fled  ;  Jordan  was  driven  back  ;  the  mountains  fkipped 
'•  like  rams,  and  the  little  hills  like  lambs  ;"  the  meaning 
is,  that  men  faw  it  and  fled  ;  that  men  were  driven  back  ; 
that  men  llcipped  like  rams  and  like  lambs,  it  will  prove, 
that  Jer.  XLVII.  6,  ^'  O  thou  fv/ord  of  the  Lord,  hov/ 
*^  long  will  it  be  ere  thou  be  quiet?  put  up  thyfelf  into 
"  thy  fcabbard;  reft  and  be  ftill ;"  means  that  ;;»v';;  fhould 


*  P-   98. 


put: 


i8o  Do^Qr  C*s  argument  from 

put  up  themfelves  into  a  fcabbard,  and  there  reft  and  b© 
JHII.  It  will  prove  that  Hcf.  XIII.  14,  '*  I  will  ranfom 
*^  them  from  the  power  of  the  crave  :  I  v/ill  redeem  them 
'^  from  death.  O  death,  I  will  be  thy  plagues  ;  O  grave, 
'^  I  will  be  thy  derrruction  ;"  means  that  God  will  be  the 
plagues  and  deftruction  of  men  :  and  when  once  it  is  efta- 
bli/lied,  that  death  and  the  grave  mean  men,  as  men  are 
to  be  ranfomed  from  the  grave  and  redeemed  from  death, 
it  will  follow  that  men  are  to  be  ranfomed  from  themfelves 

and  redeemed  from  themfelves. But  there  is  no  end  to 

the  abfurdities  which  will  follow  from  this  mode  of  con- 
flruing  the  fcriptures. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  figure  of  fpeech,  whereby  inani- 
mate things  are  reprcfented  as  living,  fenfible  and  rational 
perfons,  and  are  addrelFed  as  fuch,  is  very  conmion  in 
fcripture.  Befide  the  inliances  already  mentioned,  I  beg 
leave  to  refer  to  the  following  :  Deut.  XXXII.  i,  *'  Give 
'*  ear,  O  ye  heavens,  and  I  will  fpeak  ;  hear,  O  earth, 
*'  the  words  of  my  month.'*  Pfal.  LXV.  12,  13.  ''The 
"  little  hills  rejoice  on  every  fide.  The  paflures — the  val- 
''  leys — fhout  for  joy  :  they  alfo  fmg.''  Ifai.  LV.  12. 
*'  The  mountains  and  the  hills  fhall  break  forth  before 
'^  you  into  finging,  and  all  the  trees  of  the  field  fhall  clap 
''  their  hands."  liab.  II.  11.  *'  For  the  ftone  fnall  cry 
''  out  of  the  wall,  and  the  beam  out  of  the  timber  fliall 
f'  anfwerit."  Pfal.  LXXXIX,  12.  "  Tabor  and  Her- 
*^  mon  fhall  rejoice  in  thy  name.''  Pfal.  XCVII,  i.  *^  The 
^'  Lord  reigneth,  let  the  earth  rejoice  ;  let  the  multitude 
**  of  the  illes  be  glad  thereof.''  Ifai.  XXIV,  4.  ^'  The 
^'  earth  mourneth  and  f^ideth  away,  the  world  monrneth, 
^'  languilheth  and  fadeth  away.".  See  alfo  Pfal.  XCVIII, 
8.  Ifai.  XVI,  8.  XXXV,  1,2.  XLIX,  13.  Lev.  XVIII, 
28,  &c,  &c.  '    ' 

Now  rejoicing,  fhouting  for  joy^.  fniging,  breaking 
forth  into  finging,  clapping  of  hands,  crying  out,  anfwer- 
ing,  mourning,  languiihing,  S:c,  are  certainly  in  thefe 
pafiages  applied  to  inanimate  creatures.  But  they  are  ap- 
plicable to  fuch  creatures,  not  more  naturally  and  obviouf- 
ly,  than  earneffc  expedtaticn,  groaning  and  travailing  in 
pain. 

Though  the  Doftor  thinks  thefe  exprefiions  not  proper- 
ly applicable  to  any  other  creatures  than  mankind  ;  yet  he 
l^fimlelf  applies  them  to  mankind  in  no  other  fenfe,  than 

that 


Rofn.    VIII.   19 — 24,   confidered.  181 

that  In  Vv'hich  they  are  applicable  to  the  brutal  creation. 
The  fenfe  in  which  he  fuppofes  all  mankind  long  and  luait 
for  the  manifeftation  of  the  Tons  of  God,  is^,  that  the}^ 
^'  groan  under  the  afflidlions  of  this  world,  fenlible  of  its 
^^  imperfections,  and  confequently  deiire  fomething  bet- 
^^  ter."  Now  the  calamities  of  the  world  fall  not  on  the 
rational  part  of  it  only,  but  on  all  the  animal,  fenfitlve 
parts,  and  confequently  they,  as  well  as  mankind,  ^^  de- 
*^  fire  fomethinp-  better.''  From  thefe  calamities  and  mi- 
feries  the  animal  parts  of  the  world  will  be  delivered,  at 
the  manifeilation  of  tlie  fons  of  God. 

Further,  the  inanimate  parts  of  the  world,  once  per- 
fonified,  as  they  are  in  innumerable  inftances  throughout 
the  fcriptures,  may  as  properly  ha^e  the  particular  peiiOn- 
al  affections,  adions  and  fufferings,  of  exps£lation,  -waitings 
groaning,  travrjlingy  &c.  afcribed  to  them,  as  any  other 
perfonal  affections,  actions  or  fufferings. 

If  any  fnould  think  itimpolfible  for  brutes  and  inanimate 
matter  to  enjoy  the  liberty  of  the  children  of  God,  and 
therefore  that  it  is  abfurd  to  reprefent,  that  they  fliall  be 
deUvered  into  that  liberty  :  let  it  be  obferved,  that  though 
this  would  be  abfurd,  while  they  are  reprefented  to  be 
(till  brutes  and  inanimate  matter  ;  yet  as  foon  as  they  are 
reprefented  to  be  intelligent  beings,  the  abfurdity  ccafes. 
There  is  in  this  cafe  no  more  abfurdity  in  reprefenting 
them,  as  broup-ht  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children 
of  God  after  the  refurreftion,  than  in  repreientiug,  that 
they  rejoice  in  the  manifeilation  of  the  divine  perfections 
and  in  the  prevalence  of  true  religion  in  this  world  ;  as  is 
done  in  the  palTages  before  quoted. 

OsjECTioN.  Though  there  would  be  no  abfurdity  in 
figuratively  reprefenting  brutes  and  inanimate  creatures, 
in  this' world,  as  rejoicing  in  the  manifeftaticns  of  divine 
power,  wdfdom  and  goodnefs,  yet  there  is  an  abfurdity  in 
the  reprefentation,  that  they  ihall  be  brought  into  the  li- 
berty of  the  children  of  God,  after  the  end  of  the  world  ; 
becaufe  then  they  will  be  annihilated  ;  and  to  reprefent 
that  after  they  fhall  be  annihilated,  they  ftill  enjoy  glori- 
ous liberty,  is  a  grofs  inconfiltency.  This  is  the  objection 
in  its  full  fcrength. Let  us  attend  to  it. 

It  is  not  agreed  by  all  v/ritcrs,  that  the  liberty  of  the 
children  of  God  mentioned  in  the  21ft  verfe,  means  that 
liberty  and  bleffednefs  which  they  fnall  enjoy  after  the  re- 

furreclion 


l82  Do(fi9r  C*s  argument  from 

furredion  and  general  judgment ;  fome  are  of  the  opinion, 
that  it  means  that  liberty  which  they  iliall  enjoy  on  earth 
in  the  latter  days,  when  Chrill:  ihall  reign  on  earth  for  a 
thcufand  years.*  If  this  be  the  true  fenfe  of  the  apoftle, 
the  obje,!:tion  vaniflies  at  once,  as  the  brutal  and  inanimate 
creation  will  then  be  in  as  real  exiflence,   as  they  are  now» 

Non  is  it  agreed  among  writers,  that  this  world  will, 
after  the  general  judgment  be  annihilated.  It  is  the  opi- 
nion of  many,  and  of  great  authority  too,  that  after  a 
purification  by  fire,  it  will  be  rellored  to  a  far  more  glori- 
ous I'tate,  than  that  in  which  it  is  at  prefent,  and  will  for- 
ever be  the  place  of  the  refidence  of  holy  and  happy  be- 
ings.  If  this  be  true,   the  objection  again  vanilhes. 

Finally,  if  it  be  the  real  truth,  that  the  brutal  and 
material  creation  will  be  annihilated,  after  the  general 
judgment,  yet  there  is  no  abfurdity  in  reprefenting,  that 
it  fnall  be  brought  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children 
of  God.  Wherein  does  the  liberty  of  the  children  of  God 
confifl?  Doubtiefs  in  a  preat  meafure' in  deliverance  from 
im,  and  from  the  influence  of  it  in  themlelves  and  others. 
So  the  brutal  and  material  creation,  even  if  it  be  annihi- 
lated, Ihall  be  delivered  from  the  power,  abufe  and  abomi- 
nable perverlion  of  wicked  men,  to  which  it  had  been  long 
iubjefced,  and  under  which  it  had  long  groaned.  There- 
fore this  creation  introduced  as  a  rational  perfon,  may, 
v/ithout  impropriety  be  reprefented  as  earnelfly  \viflinig 
for  that  deliverance.  And  as  the  deliverance  from  lin  in 
themlelves  and  from  the  effedls  offm  in  others,  is  at  leaft 
a  great  part  of  the  liberty  v/hich  the  children  of  God  ihall 
obtain  after  the  general  judgment  ;  fo  the  aforefaid  deli- 
verance of  the  creation  may  not  improperly  be  called  a 
deliverance  into  the  liberty  of  the  children  of  God,  into  a 
fnnilar  liberty,  a  like  freedom  from  th6  tyranny,  abufe s 
and  perveriions  of  wicked  men.  Or  the  fenfe  may  be  a 
deliverance  /«,  at,  or  oft  occajion  of,  the  glorious  liberty 
of  the  children  of  God.  The  prepolition  «<?,  is  capable 
of  this  fenfe,  and  then  the  conitruclion  of  this  paifage 
v/ill  be,  That  the  creation  itfeif  will  be  dehvcred  from 
the  bondage  of  corruption,  at  the  time,  or  on  occa{ion,of 
the  glorious  liberty  or  deliverance  of  the  children  of  God. 

2.  Doctor  C.  further  pleads,   *^  That  ^r^tra   ■n'^iKri?^  the 

*'  '•johole 

*  See  Gwfe'^s  Paraphrafe   hi  he.   and  Hopkhis^s   Inquiry 
comer nwf^  the  Tnturi  Zi&U  of  tha  Wicked,    P,    ici. 


Rom.  VIIL    19 — 24,     confidered,  cSj 

^*  ivhLle  creation,  is  never  iifed  (one  clifput-ed  text  only  ex— 
*'  cepted,  Col.  I.  15)  to  lignify  more  than  the  whole  nio- 
^'  ral  creation,  or  all  mankind.''* — This  is  a  matter  of  im- 
portance^  and  requires  particular  attention. — The  phrafe 
TTx^s.  K^ii.-ic  is  ufed  four  times  only  in  ail  the  New  Tefta- 
mentj  belide  the  inftance  which  is  now  under  confjderr.ticn. 
The  places  are,  Mark  XVI.  15  ;  "  Go  ye  into  ail  the 
*'  world  and  preach  the  gofpel  to  every  creature,^''  Col.  I. 
15;  **  The  firft  born  of  every  creaitire.^^  V.  2-:?;  **  The 
**  gofpel  which  ye  have  heard,  which  is  preached  to  every 
*'  creature,  which  is  under  heaven.''  i  Pet.  II.  13;  *^*Sub- 
^'  mit  yourfeives  to  every  ordinance  of  man  for  the  Lord's 
''  fake." 

As  to  Mark  XVI.  15,  it  is  granted,  that  in  that  text 

evny  creature  means  human  creatcre.- Though   Dr.  C, 

fays,  that  Col.  I.  15,  is  difputed ;  yet  he  pretends  not, 
that  every  creature  here  means  mankind  merely  :  nor  does 
it  appear,  that  the  text  is  in  thi?  refped  diiputed.  It  is 
indeed  difputed,  w-hether  •rru^-n  yAir-fua,  every  creature,  or 
rather,  all  the  creation,  refer  to  the  new  creation,  i.  e. 
the  church,  or  to  the  old  creation,  which  wr.'^.  made  at  the 
beginning  of  the  world.  It  is  alfo  difputed,  whether  Chrift 
be  fo  the  firft  born  of  all  the  creation,  as  to  be  a  creature 
himfelf  ;  or  whether  he  be  the  nrft  born  in  this  fenfe  only, 
that  he  is  the  heir,  the  head  and  Lord  of  all  the  creation. 
npa'?6lo;co?,  in  our  verfion  rendered  firft-born,  is  by  fome  ren- 
dered firj?  creator  or  producer,  which  gives  a  flill  dilFer- 
€nt  fenfe  to  the  palTage.  But  it  does  not  appear,  that  it 
has  evep  been  contended,  that  t^sji;  y.^nTico^  '*  lignines  no 
*'  more  than  all  mankind."  For  in  whatever  fenfe  Chriu: 
is  the  firil-bdrn  of  all  the  creation,  he  is  the  firfc-born  not 
only  pf  the  human  race,  but  of  all  the  creation  abfolutc- 
ly.  If  it  be  laid,  that  Chrifl  is  the  iiril-born  of  all  the 
creation,  as  he  is  the  firft  creature  which  was  m.ade  ;  tliis 
implies,  that  he  was  made  not  before  all  men  only,  but  be- 
fore all  creatures.  If  it  be  faid,  that  he  is  the  lirft-borii 
of  all  che  creation,  as  he  was  begotten  from  eternity,  and 
fo  begotten  before  all  the  creation ;  ftill  he  was  in  this 
fenfe  begotten  not  before  all  men  only,  but  before  all  crea- 
tures. \i  it  be  faid,  that  he  is  the  firfc-born  of  all  the 
creation,  as  he  is  the  heir,  the  head,  the  Lord  of  all  ; 
ftill  in  this  fejife  he  is  the  firft-born  not  of  mankind  only, 
but  of  all    creatures.-— Wha:  right  then  liad  Dr.  C.  to 

*  P.   99.  ^^'^^^ 


J  84  •       Do&or  Cs  argument  from 

fuggei%  that  it  Is  difputed,  whether  Truo-ni  xi,5-5&«c  In  \l\is 
text  ^'  fignify  more  than  the  whole  moral  creation  of  this 
"  world;,  or  all  mankind?" 

The  nextpaffige,  in  which  tta^u.  >,^/5-/?  occurs,  is  Col. 
I.  23;  ^'  i  lie  golpcl,  which  was  preached  to  every  crea. 
^'  ture  under  heaven.^'  The  Doftor,  who  was  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  original,  doubtlefs  recollefted,  or  at 
ieaft,  he  ought  to  have  examined,  and  then  he  Vv^ould 
have  feoin,  that  in  the  oriciinal  it  is,  '^  «;-  7r.vT»  %  xl/c-s^, 
'^  in  all  the  creation  under  heaven,"  or  in  all  the  world. 
Surel/  the  Doctor  did  not  imagine,  that  the  golpel  was 
preached  lukbin  every  man. 

The  other  pailage  is  i  Pet.  11.  13,  '^  Subm.it  your- 
'^  felvesto  every  ordinance  of  men  •/'  7rar«  rty.3-,ffiT,v«  ;t1/3-s/^ 
every  human  creciture.  The  quefrion  is  whether  thefe 
vv^ords  lignify  all  mankind  :  and  the  very  propcfmg  of  the 
queftion,  I  prefame,  fuggefts  the  anfwer.  Will  any  man 
lay  ,that  every  Chriftian  is  required,  either  by  realon  or 
revelation,  to  fubmit  to  every  individual  of  the  human 
race,   whether  man,     woman  or  child  ;    and  whether    the 

Chriftian  be  a  lord  or  a  tenant,   a  king   or  a  fubjeft  ? 

Befides  ;  allowing  that  the  phrafe  as  it  ftands,'means  the  hu- 
man race  ;  the  addition  of  ^y'S-caTrsvn  to  ^r^ra  :t^ic-ri  ihows  that 
TtzTii  y.^i.Tit  v/ithout  «.yep&,7r.'v>«,  would  uot  fignify  the  human 
race;  other  wife  why  is  it  added?  Ifthe  words  in  our  language, 
every  creature^  mean  always  every  human  creature,  it  would 
be  needlels  in  any  cafe  to  infert  the  adjeclive  human  ;  and 
the  very  infertion  of  it  would  imply,  thaf  the  writer  or 
fpeakcr  was  of  the  opinion,  that  the  bare  words  every  crea-^ 
ture,   were  not  certainly  limited  to  human  creatures,  but 

would  moft  obvioudy  be  taken    in   a  greater    extent. 

Inis  text  therefore  is  fo  far  from  a  proof,  that  '^  TTAo-a. 
•-^^x'T^" ^  every  creature y  is  never  vSt{\  in  all  the  New 
Teflament  (except  in  one  difputed  text)  to  fignify 
*'  more  than  all  mankind;"  that  it  is  a  clear  proof, 
'^  that  it  does  n:iturally  '^  fignify  more  than  all  mankind," 
and  to  m.ike  it  fignify  no  more,  mull  be  limited  by  ^v- 
6c.'<;--!'»,  human. 

Aftsr  all,  tlie  very  drift  of  the  apoflle  fhows, 
that  ^i:i  i  Pet.  II.  13,  he  was  fo  far  from  meaning  all 
mankind  by  the  exprefllon  Tac-->i  «,-Sfu)^/v«  -."/r?',  that  he 
meant  either  rot  one  of  the  human  race,  pi*  at 
Kioil  but  vzrj  fcv/  ;  that  he  meant  either  human  laws' and 

conftitutions 


Ko7n,   VIIL   19  ■  -24,  confidered,  x%^ 

toiiflitutions,  or  human  magiftrates,  the  king  as  fupreme, 
governors  who  are  ient  b}^  him,  &c. 

Now  let  the  reader  judge,  whether  t-^t^-  Jti^^-zcbe  never 
ufed  in  ail  the  New  Teftament  to  fignify  more  or  lefs  than 
all  mankind  ;  and  whether  of  the  four  inftances,  in  which 
it  occurs,  befide  this  of  Ptom.  VIIIp  it  do  not  in  every  one 
fignify  either  more  or  lefs  than  all  mankind ;  excepting 
Mark  XVI,  15.  And  it  is  equally  againft  Dr.  C^s  argu- 
ment from  Rom.  "VIII,  whether  it  be  ufed  in  other  places 
to  fignify  more,  or  to  fignify  lefs  than  all  mankind.  If  it 
fignify  more  in  other  places,  it  may  ligilify  more  in  Rom. 
VIIL  If  it  fignify  lefs  in  other  places,  it  may  fignify  lefs 
in  Rom.  VIII  :  and  when  the  apofde  fays,  ''  the  earnefc 
^'  expedation  of  the  creature  v/aiteth  for  the  manifeflati- 
**  on  of  the  ions  of  God,^'  he  may  mean  that  only  believers 
and  true  Chriftians,  or  the  true  church  in  all  ages,  as  dif- 
tinguiihed  from  the  Apoille,  and  firii  converts,  v/ho  had 
the  firft  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  are  thus  v^^aiting,  &c. 

It  is  further  to  be  obferved,  that  y^^.i-n^^  creature  or 
creation,  without  ~^-at,  is  in  the  whole  New  Teltament  u- 
fed  ten  times,  befide  the  ufe  of  it  in  Rom.  VIII ;  in  no 
one  of  which  does  it  mean  mankind.  The  places  in  which 
it  is  ufed  are  all  noted  in  the  margin,  that  the  reader  may 
examine  them  for  his  own  fatisfadion.* 

In?  the  Septuagint  verlion  of  the  Old  Tefcament,  k'^/t;? 

occurs  but  three  times  :    2  Chron.   XIV.    15,   where  it  is 

tranfiated  r^r//L' .•  Ezra  VIIL   21  ;   v.'here    it  is  tranflated 

fuhflance :  and  Pfal.  CIV.  24,  where  it  is  tranflated  rirhcs. 

'In  the  Apocrypha  it  is  M^^di  nine  times ;    and  not  oncfe 

to  fignify  all  mankind  and  not  more  or  I'efs.f 

BuT  it  is  time  v/e  attend  to  Dr.  C's  other  reafon  for  un- 
derftaxidino;  the  creature  to  mean  all  mankind  :  or  at  leail 
to  include  all  mankind,  if  it  mean  any  thing  more.  The 
reafon  is, 

3.  That  ''  it  would  be  highly  incongruous,  to  give  this 
**  ftyle^'  [the  w^hole  creation]  '*■  to  the  inferior  or  lefs  v'a- 

B  b  ''  iuabie 

*MarkX,  6.  XIII.  19.  Rom.  I.  20,25.  2Cor.'v. 
17.  Gal.  VI.  15.  Heb.  IV.  13.  IX.  11.  2  Pet.  III.  4. 
Rev.  III.  14. 

t  The  places  are,  Judith  IX.  12.  XVI.  14,  Wifd.  IL 
6.  V.  17.  XVI.  24.  XIX.  6.  Eccl.  XVI.  17.  XLIIL 
25.  XLiX.  16. 


1 86  /)r.  Os  Argument  from 

^^  luable  part,  wholly  leaving   out   the   moft  excellent'^ 

part,  mankind.  J But  is  there  more  propriety  in  calling 

a  fmall  part,  though  it  be  the  moft  excellent  part,  the 
whole  creation  ;  than  in  calling  by  far  the  greater  part  the 
whole  creatloHy  though  it  be  not  fo  excellent  ?  The  learned 
men  in  any  nation,  are,  in  Ibme  refpecls,  the  moft  excellent 
part  of  the  nation.  But  would  it  be  more  proper  to  call 
them,  to  the  exclufion  of  all  the  unlearned,  the  whole 
nation,  than  to  call  all  the  unlearned,  to  the  exclufion  of 
the  few  learned,  the  whole  nation  ?  The  few  truly  vir- 
tuous and  holy  perfons  who  love  God  fupremely  and  their 
neighbour  as  themfelves,  and  who  find  the  ftrait  gate, 
are  undoubtedly  the  moft  excellent  part  of  any  nation. 
But  would  it  be  more  proper  to  call  them  alone  the  whole 
nation,  than  to  call  ihe  reft  alone,  the  whole  nation  ? 
Thofe  of  the  apoftolic  age,  who  had  the  firft  fruits  of  the 
Spirit,  vv^erc,  without  doubt  the  moft  excellent  of  that  ge- 
neration. But  v/culd  it  therefore  be  more  proper  to  call 
them  as  diftinguifned  from  the  reft  of  men,  that  whole  ge- 
neration ;  than  to  call    the   reft  of  men  as    diitinguiOied 

from  them,  that  whole  generation  ? Befide  ;  propriety 

or  congruity  of  language  depends  wholly  on  ufe.  If  the 
words  creature,  creation  and  whole  creation  be  frequently 
in  fcripture  ufed  without  any  reference  to  mankind  ; 
then  there  is  no  incongruity  in  the  fame  ufe  of  the 
fame  words,  in  this  eighth  chapter  of  R.omans  :  and  that 
this  is  the  ufe,  I  appeal  to  the  texts  before  quoted,  which 
are  all  the  texts  in  which  the  words  here,  tranflated  crea- 
ture, and  the  %vhols  creation,  are  to  be  found  in  all  the 
fcriptnres. 

IX.  We  are  to  inquire  into  the  meaning  of  the  expref- 
fion,  '^  manifeftation  of  the  fons  of  God." — Thefe  words, 
*^  llie  earneft  expcclation  of  the  creature  waiteth  for  the 
^^  manifeftation  of  the  Tons  of  God  ;"  are  thus  paraphrafed 
by  Dr.  C,  **  The  creature,  the  rational  creature,  man- 
^*  kind  in  general,  waits  for  the  time  when  it  fliall  be  re- 
*'  vealed,  that  they  are  the  fons  of  God.^'||  He  here 
takes  it  for  granted,  that  the  word  creature  means  man- 
kind. Whether  this  be  a  fuppofition  juftly  founded,  is 
now  fubmitted  to  the  reader  who  has  perufed  what  has 
been  offered  on  this  fubjed. 

But 

t  P.  98.    [!  P.  92. 


Rom,   VIIL   19 — 24,  conjidersd,  187 

But  even  on  the  fuppofition  that  the  creature  does  mean 
mankind y  how  flrange  it  is  that  the  waiting  of  this  crea- 
ture for  the  manifeftation  of  the  fons  of  God,  fhoukl  mean 
that  this  creature  is  waiting  to  be  itfeif  manifefted  to  be 
the  fons  of  God  !  Would  it  not  be  ftrann-e  areuino-,  to 
fay,  that  becaufe  tne  Jews  waited  for  the  manifefi-aticn  of 
the  Mefiiah,  therefore  they  w^aited  to  have  it  manifefted, 
that  they  were  the  MeiTiah  !  or  that  becaufe  Simeon  v/ait— 
ed  for  the  manifeftation  of  the  confolation  of  Ifrael  ;  there- 
fore he  waited  to  have  it  m.ade  apparent,  that  he  was  the 
confolation  of  Ifrael  !  Yet  either  of  thcfe  e3s:preiiions  as 
naturally  imports  the  fenfe  which  I  have  now  given,  as 
the  expreflion,  the  creature  luaiteth  for  the  manifeifation  of 
the  fons  of  God,  imports,  that  the  '^  creature'*  or  race  of 
creatures  is  waiting  to  have  it  '^revealed  that  they  are  the 
^'  fons  of  God.'' 

III.  The  meaning  of  the  word  ^'  vanity"  next  requires 
our  attention. — By  this  word  Dr.  C.  underftands  ^^  mcriali' 
'^  ty  and  all  other  unavoidable  unhappinefs  and  imperfe^l'ion 
*^  of  this  prefent  weak,  frail,  mortal  ftate."*  Again, 
'^  mankind  were  fubjecled  to  vanity  or  ;72cr//j///);.'*|j  **  God 
^^  fubjeded  mankind  to  vanity,  i.  e.  the  infelicities  of  this 
'*  life.'^f  According  to  Dr.  C.  then,  the  vanity  here 
fpoken  of  is  a  natural  evil.  But  it  may  at  leaft  be  made  a 
queftion,  v/hether  he  be  not  mifba-ken,  and  whether  it  be 
not  a  moral  evil.  The  fame  word,  /c/.itla.ol^?,  is  ufed  twice 
more  in  the  New  Teflament  ;  Eph.  IV.  17  ;  ^^  That  ye 
''  henceforth  walk,  not  as  other  gentiles  walk  in  the  va- 
'^  miv  of  their  mind,  havinfr  the  underflandin^:  darkened, 
^'  being  alienated  from  the  life  of  God,''  Scc  •,  and  2  Pet. 
II.  18,  '*  For  when  they  fpeak  great  fwelling  v/ords  of 
^'  vanity. ^^  In  thefe  two,  the  only  inilances  of  its  ufe  in 
the  New  Teflament,  belide  the  text  under  confideration, 
it  manifeftly  means  not  a  natural  but  a  m.oral  evil,  either 
pofitive  wickednefs  or  at  lead  a  linful  deficiency.  Is  not 
this  a  ground  of  prefumption  at  leafc,  that  alio  in  Rom. 
VIII.   20,  it  means  a  moral  evil  ? 

Ik  the  fame  fenfe  y.<«.i(ji  the  adjedive  from  which  /^.A>/e1«? 
is  derived,  is  ufed  Jam.  I.  26,  ^'  This  man's  religion  is 
*'  vain:"  and  i  Pet.  I.  18;  ^^  Ye  were  not  redeemed 
'^  with  corruptible  things — frbm  your  vain  converlation." 
^ctist/oo//.*/  is  alfo  ufed  in  the  fame  fenfe,  Rom.  I.  21  ;  ^'  Be^ 

^^  cam© 

£  P.  JC4.     I  P.   106.    t  I^i^* 


l88  Doiior  Os  argurnent  jrom 

^^  c^me  vain  in  their  imaginations  and  their  foalifh  heart 
''^  was  darkened. '^  Vain  and  vanity  in  none  of  thefe  in- 
ilances  lignify  *'  mortality"  or  "  infehcity  ;"  but  either 
poutive  lin  or  flnful  deficiency. 

Besides  ;  the  ver^^  nature  of  the  cafe  lliows,  that  vani- 
ty in  this  inllance  was  not  ufed  by  the  apoftle,  in  Dr.  C's 
ienfe.  According  to  his  fenie  oi  vanity,  the  apoille  under 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghoil,  advances  this  propoiition  ; 
The  human  race  was  made  fubjeft  to  *^  mortality,  una- 
'^  voidable  unhappinefs  and  imperfection/*'  not  willingly. 
But  who  ever  fupcofed  that  the  human  race  v/as  made  1  ab- 
ject to  thefe  things  v.illingly  ?  or  that  any  man,  or  any  in- 
telli^ent  beins:,  ever  chofe  to  be  fubjecl  to  mortality  and 
unhappinefs  ?  This  is  a  propodtion  too  iniignilicant  to  be 
advanced  by  fo  fenfible  and  grave  a  writer  as  Paul,  and 
under  the  infpiration  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  too. The  Doc- 
tor feems  to  have  been  avvare  of  this  obje<ftion  to  his  con- 
ilrudion  oivajiityy  and  therefore  fuppofes  the  word  ivlUlng- 
ly  means,  not  vv'hat  is  naturally  underflood  by  it,  a  volun- 
tary confent  of  the  heart  ;  but  that  it  means,  '^  through 
**  fome  fault,"  *^  hy  a    criminal  choice.''     Therefore 

IV.   We  are  to  inquire  into  the  meaning  of  the   vvord 

willingly. Is  it  not  at  iirft  blufli  a  little  extraordinary, 

that  willingnefs  mufc  certainl}'-  mean  a  fault,  a  criminal 
choice?  Suppofe  anhiftorian  Ihould  fay,  th3.t  Hi^gb  Peters 
and  ethers  who  w^erc  executed  at  the  refcoration  of  Charles 
the  fecond,  were  executed  not  ivllllngly  ;  mufc  we  under- 
ftand  him  to  mean,   that  they  were  not  executed  in  confe- 

quence  of  any  fault  of  their  own  : The  original  word 

«K6n'  is  ufed  once  more  only  in  ail  the  New  "^L  euament,  i 
Cor.  IX.  17,  *^  If  I  do  this  thing"  (i.  e.  preach  the 
gofpel)  *^  ivillhi-gly ,  '.kkv^  I  have  a  reward  :  but  if  agalnfi 
**  my  will,  ei-iuy,  a  difpenfation  of  the  gofpel  is  committed 
'^  unto  me.''  According  to  Dr.  C's  conflruftion  of  wil- 
Ihigly  in  Kom,  VIII,  the  meaning  of  the  apoflle  is,  If  I 
preach  the  gofpel  '*  through  fpme  fault  of  my  ov/n,"  or 
'^^  by  my  own  criminal  choice,"  I  have  a  reward  ;  but 
if  I  do  it  without  any  fault  opi*  criminal  choice  of  my 
own,  a  difpenfation  of  the  gofpel  is  committed   unto   m.e. 

F^y.oicrioc  derived  from  cx&v,  and  of  the  fame  figiiification, 
is  in  the  New  Teftament  ufed  in  Philera.  14,  only  ;  *^  That 
^'  thy  benefit  ihould  not  be  of  necefilty,  but  ivllllngiy  .•" 
"wliich  I  prefume  even  Dr.  Cv  would  not  expound  thus  ; 

.1  liat 


Rom,   VIIL    19  24,   conjidered.  189 

That  tliy   benefit  {liould  rot  be  of  neceiHty^  but  through 

fome  fault  of  thine  own.-^ The  adverb,  i^io-joo),^  js  ufed 

twice  in  the  New  Teftament^  lieb.  X.  26  :  '^  If  we  lin 
*^  vjillfully,  after  we  have  received  the  knowledge  of  the 
^^  truth  :^'  and  i  Pet.  V.  2,  ^^  Taking  the  ovcrlight 
*^  thereof,  not  by  coiiliraint  but  iviilhtgly.'*  To  the  iirft 
of  thele  the  Doctor  in  a  quotation  from  Taylor,  refers,  as 
an  authority,  to  confirm  his  fenfe  of  wlJUngly  in  B.cm. 
VIII.  But  furely  both  he  and  I'aylor  made  this  reference 
with  httle  coniideration ;  for  according  to  them  the  fenfe 
of  the  verfs  in  Hebrews  is  this  ;  If  after  vve  have  received 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  we  lin  ^*  through  our  own 
*''  fault,''  or  ^^  by  our  own  criminal  choice.''  Did  Dr. 
C.  or  Dr.  T.  indeed  believe,  that  wc  ever  fm  v/ithcut 
any  fault  of  our  own,  or  without  our  own  criminal  choice? 

It  is  plain,    that  the  meaning  of  Keb.  X.  26,   is  what 

is  well  exprefled  in  the  tranilation  ;  If  'we  iin  ivilfidly,  not 
through  fome  inattention,  but  pertinacioufly,  after  v/e 
knovv^  the  truth,  know  our  duty  and  the  proper  motives 
to  it  ;  there  remaineth  no  more  facrifice  for  iin. 

Thus  the  conftrudion,  v/hich  Dr.  C.  o-ives  ofvjHlbir^'y* 
as  meaning,  *^  through  our  own  fault,"  or  "by  our  cu^n 
'^  criminal  choice/'  appears  to  be  v/hclly  unfupported  by 
any  authority;  to  be  a  mere  invention  to  help  over  the  dif- 
ficulty of  the  fuppofition,  that  the  infpired  apollle  {liould 
advance  fo  trifling  a  proposition  as  this  ;  that  mankind  do 
not  choofe  mifery  :  and  alfo  appears  to  be  attended  with 
naany  abfiu'dities. 

The  error  of  that  conftruflion  further  appears  frcin 
this,  that  if  what  comes  upon  us  not  through  our  own  fault, 
be  properly  expreffed  by  faying,  that  we  are  fubjecVed  to 
it,  not,iuillingly  ;  then  what  does  come  upon  us  through  cur 
own  fault,  may  be  properly  exprelTed-  by  faying,  it  comes 
upon  us  zuillingiy.  At  this  rate  the  inhabitants  of  the  old 
world  were  drowned  willingly  :  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
were  burnt  up  willhigly -.  Pharaoh  was  lirft  plagued,  and 
then  deftroyed  in  the  Red  Sea  -ujillinclv  :  Korah,  Dn than 
and  Abiram  were  fv/allowed  up  in  the  earth  iviUingly  : 
Thofe  v/hom  Dr.  C.  fuppofes  to  be  puniflied  in  hell  for 
ages  of  ages,  are  punilhed  iv'iUmgly. 

Neither  is  it  true,  in  Dr.  C's  fenfe,  that  mankind  are 
made  fubject  to  vanity,  not  nvUUngly  :  i.e.  "  Not  through 
f*  any  fault  of  theirs;"     *^  not  by  their    own    criminal 

<^  choice.'^ 


ipo  I>r,  Cs  argument  f mm 

*^  choice.'- By   varaty   he    underflands    '^^  mortality/* 

*'  and  the  infelicities  of  this  vain  mortal  life.''  There- 
fore according  to  him,  men  are  not  made  fubject  tc  morta- 
lity, and  the  infelicities  of  this  life,  through  any  fault  of 
their  own.  And  if  fo,  then  death  and  the  various  infeli- 
cities of  life  are  not  any  evidence,  that  the  iubjecls  of 
death  and  thofe  infelicities  are  themfelves  fmners,  or  the 
objects  of  God's  difpleafure.  But  this  is  contrary  to  the 
whole  current  of  icriptural  reprefentations  ;  particularly 
to  Pf.  XC.  3,  &c.   ^^  Thou  turnefl:  man  to  dcflruftion,  and 

*'  fayeil,   P.eturn  ye    children  of  men. Thou  carrieil 

*'  them  av.'ay,  as  with  a  flood ;  they  are  as  a  fieep.  In  the 
'^  morning  they  are  like  grafs,  which  groweth  up  ;  in  the 
*'  evening  it  is  cut  down  and  withereth.  For  they  are 
confumed  ^j;  thins  anger,  and  by  thy  "cjrath  they  are 
troubled.  Thou  haft  fet  our  iniquitlis  before  thee, 
our  fecret  fins  in  the  light  of  thy  countenance.  For 
our  days  are  paffed  away  in  thy  ivrath  :  we  fpend  our 
days  as  a  tale  that  is  told.  The  days  of  our  years  are 
^^  threefcore  years  and  ten  ;  and  if  by  reafon  of  ftrength 
^'  they  be  fourfcore  years,  yet  is  their  fcrength  labour  and 
*'  Ibrrow  :  for  it  is  foon  cut  ofF,  and  we  fly  away.  Who 
^'  knoweth  the  power  of  thine  dinger,  according  to  thy 
'*  fear,  fo  is  thy  ivrath.  So  teach  us  to  number  our  days, 
''  that  we  may  apply  our  hearts  to  wifdom."  *'  How 
'-  plain  and  full  is  this  teftimony,  that  the  general  morta- 
^^  lity  of  miankind  is  an  evidence  of  God's  anger  for  the 
"  fn  of  thofe,  who  are  thefubjedls  of  fuch  a  difpenfati- 
''  on?"* 

But  if  mortality  and  the  calamities  of  life  be  an  evi- 
dence of  God's  anger  at  the  fm  of  thofe,  who  fufFer  death 
and  thofe  calamities ;  then  it  is  not  true,  that  men  in  ge- 
neral are  fubjecled  to  death  and  thofe  calamities,  without 
any  fault  of  their  own  ;  but  the  truth  is,  that  they  arc 
fubjecl:ed  to  them  on  account  of  their  own  fin,  as  this  is 
the  very  caufe  of  the  divine  anger,  of  which  calamity  and 
death  are  the  effeds  and  tokens. 

If 

*  For  further  proof  that  temporal  death  and  Infeli cities 
came  on  men,  on  account  ef  their  own  fins,  I  beg  leave  to 
refer  the  reader  to  Prejident  Edwards's  hsk  an  Original 
Sin,  P4rt  L   Chap,  IL 


Rom.  VIIL   19 24,   conjidere^.  Jy£ 

If  it  fliould  be  objeded,  that  to  be  made  fubjecl  to  va- 
nity, in  this  paffage,  does  not  mean^  to  be  made  aclually  to 
fuffer  death  and  infelicity,  or  does  not  inchide  the  infli^i' 
on  of  death  and  infelicity  ;  but  implies  mortality  only,  or 
that  confbitution  whereby  men  are  mads  mortal  or  i'lahle 
to  death  and  infelicity  :  this  objedtion  grants,  that  death 
and  infelicity  are  aftually  infli^led  on  men  on  account  of 
their  own  fault  or  fin  ;  but  holds,  that  ihe/d«/<?wc^of  mor- 
tality and  liahknefs  to  infelicity  took  place  in  confequence 
of  Adam's  fm  only.  So  that  according  to  this,  the  fenfe 
of  the  apoftle  will  be.  That  the  human  race  v/as  put  un- 
der a  fentence  of  mortality,  without  any  fault  of  their  own; 
yet  this  fentence  was  never  to  be  executed,  but  en  ac- 
count of  their  own  fault.  And  the  confide  ration  that  m.an- 
kind  are  put  under  the  fentence  of  mortality,  without  any 
fault  of  their  own,  is  2  ground  of  hope,  that  they  will  be 
dehvered  from  that  fentence  of  mortality.  But  as  the  ac- 
tual  Inf/t^kn  of  death  is  on  account  of  their  own  fault, 
there  is  no  fuch  ground  of  hope,  that  they  will  be  deliver- 
ed from  death  and  infelicity  themfelves. — — A  mighty  pri-. 
vilege  this  (were  it  poiFible)  to  be  delivered  from  the  Jiri' 
ience  of  death,  and  from  mortality,  but  not  from  death  it^ 
felp.  To  be  delivered  from  liabknefs  to  infelicity,  but  not 
from  infelicity  itfelf ! 

I  AM  not  infenfible  of  the  abfurdity  and  impolTibility  of 
fuch  a  fuppofition.  But  who  is  anfv/erable  for  this  ab- 
furdity? Doubtlefs  the  objector  himfelf,  who  is  of  the  o- 
pinion,  that  to  be  made  fubjed  to  vanity,  is  to  be  under 
the  fentence  of  death,  and  to  be  made  liable  to  infelicity, 
but  not  to  fuffer  death  or  infelicity. 

The  idea,  that  to  be  made  fubjeft  to  vanity,  t^rsla^H, 
means  not  xhe/tate  of  fubjeftion  to  vanity,  but  the  aM  by 
which  the  creature  was  fubjedled  :  and  that  s-ia  lev  i/7rol«t|-- 
«v']«  means,  as  Dr.  C.  fays,*  by  or  through  him,  who 
fubjected  it ;  implies  this  further  abfurdity,  that  the  a6i:, 
by  which  the  creature,  was  made  fubjed:  to  vanity,  was  by 
him  who  fubjecled  it ;  or  that  a£l  was  really  the  aft  of  him 
whofe  a6l  it  was  ;  that  he  who  fubjeded  ,the  creature  to  va- 
nity, really  did  fubjecl  it  to  vanity. Eut  who  will  dare 

to  impute  lucb  identical  propofiticns  to  the  infpired  apoftle  ? 

V.    We  atienp-th  come  to  confider  Dr.  G's  fenfe  of  the 

o  

phrafe  bondage  of  corruption. This  according  to  him  is 

fynonymous 

*  p.  105. 


't6Z  Dc^or  C^s  argument  from 

fynonymous  Vv-itli  vanity  :   Therefore  the  fame  obfervations 
for  iubftance,  which  were  made  concernmg  his  fenfe  of  va- 
nlty,  are  applicable  to  his  fenfe  of  the  bondage  of  corruption* 
But  a  few  things  in  particular  are  worthy  of  remark.  Dr. 
C.  fays,  that  in  confequence  of  the  fubjecLion  of  man  **  to 

*'  a  frail,  mortal,  corruptible  condition ^^he  is  upon  the 

'*  foot  o?  mere  law^  and  without  the  fuppofition  of  grace 
*'  or  gofpel,  in  bondage  to  bodily  or  animal  appetites  and 
''  inclinations,*'^  It  feems  then,  that  fmce  all  chriltiani- 
zed  nations  are  under  not  mere  law,  but  grace  and  gofpely 
they  are  not  in  bondage  to  bodily  or  animal  appetites  and 
inclinations,  and  doubtlefs  for  the  fame  reafon,  are  not  in 
bondage  to  any  principle  of  depravity.  But  is  this  indeed 
fo;,  that  men  under  imre  laiu  are  fo  depraved,  as  to  be 
in  bondage  to  animal  appetites;  but  as  foon  as  they  are 
placed  under  the  goipcl,  in  the  mere  external  difpenfation 
of  it,  they  are  no  longer  the  fubjecls  of  any  depravity  ? 
It  feems  then,  that  the  natural  depravity  of  men  depends 
on  their  mere  external  circumitances  ;  that  while  they  are 
without  the  gofpel  their  hearts  are  in  bondage  to  animal 
appetites  :  but  as  foon  as  they  are  placed  under  the  gofpely 
however  they  diiregard  it,  they  are  free  from  that  bon- 
dage. But  all  thole  nations,  to  whom  Chriftianity  ispub- 
liflied,  are  under  the  gofpel ;  therefore  they  are  already  free 
from  bondage  to  animal  appetites ;  and  it  is  abfurd  for  them 
to  hope,  that  they  fiail  be  delivered  from  this  part  of  the 
bondage  of  corruption. 

Beside  ;  Dr.  C.  fays,  that  ^'  both'  thefe  fenfes  of 
'*  bondage'^  [i.e.  bondage  to  death  and  bondage  to  ani- 
mal apetites]  '^  are  certainly  included  in  that  vanity  the 
'*  creature  is  fubjecled  to."f  Then  by  the  creature  Dr. 
C.  nuifl:  mean,  not  the  whole  moral  creation,  or  all  man- 
kind including  thofe  nations  and  individuals  to  whom  the 
gofperis  made  l:nov,'n  :  becaufe  they  are  not  under  mere 
iaw,  and  therefore  according  to  him  are  not  fubjecled  to 
that  part  of  vanity  which  confifts  in  bondage  to  animal  ap- 
petites. Yet  he  abundantly  holds,  that  all  men  are  fub- 
jecled to  vanity,  which  certainly  includes,  according  to  him^  , 
bondage  to  animal  appetites. 

According  to  Dr.  C.  vanity  includes  bondage  to  bo- 
dily or  animal  appetites^  Yet  mankind  are  fubje6led  to 
vanity  not  through  any  fault  or  crime  of  their  own.     But 

is 

*  P.   IC9.     flbid. 


Rotn»  VIIL    19—24,  conjiciered,  103 

is  It  not  a  fault  or  crime  in  any  man^  to  be  governed  by 
his  bodily  appetites,  or  to  be  in  bondage  to  them  ?  "VVitli 
what  truth  or  confiftency  then  could  he  hold,  that  men  are 
fubjecled  to  vanity  not  through  any  fault  or  crime  of  their 
own,  and  that  therefore  their  fubjeftion  to  vanity  is  a 
ground  of  hope  of  deliverance  from  it;  when  the  very 
Itate  of  fubjedlion  to  vanity  is  a  very  great  fault  or  crime  ? 
Can  a  fault  or  crime  be  a  ground  of  hope  of  impunity,  or 
of  the  divine  favoui'  ? 

But  perhaps  it  may  be  pleaded,  that  though  the  fiate 
of  fubjedtion,  or  t'cvQ  being  fubjecl  to  vanity,  implies  a 
fault  ;  yet  the  acl  of  fzthjs cling,  or  the  c6l  by  which  man- 
kind were  fubjected,  to  vanity,  is  not  through,  or  On  ac- 
count of  any  previous  fault  of  mankind  in  general  ;  and 
this  is  the  ground  of  hope  that  they  Ihall  be  delivered.  If 
this  be  the  meaning  of  T)y.  C.  it  comes  to  this.  That, 
becaufe  mankind  are,  in  confequence  of  Adam's  {in,  not 
their  own  peribnal  iin,  fubjectcd  by  God  to  frailty,  mor- 
tality, bodily  .appetites  and  iin  ;  therefore  they  do  nor  de- 
ferve  to  be  left  v.^ithout  hope  of  deliverance  :  the  divi^ie 
perfections  do  not  admit  of  it  :  it  would  not  be  juft :  at 
leafc  it  v/ould  be  a  hard  cafe.  Otherv/ife  where  is  thd 
ground  of  hope  of  deliverance  ?  No  promife  is  pleaded 
as  the  ground  of  this  hope.  The  only  pretended  ground 
of  hope  in  this  argument  is,  that  mankind  were  fubje6led 
to  vanity,  not  through  any  fault  of  their  own  :  as  in  the 
following  palTage  ;  ^'  For  if  mankind  were  fubjecled  to  a 
•^  ftate  of  fuifering,  not  through  any  wilful  difobedience 
*^  which  they  themfelves  had  been  perfonally  guilt}^  of,  it 
"^  is  congruous  to  reafon  to  think,  that  they  ihould  be  fub- 

*^  jecled  to  it  not  fmally but  with  room  for  hope  tliat 

'*  they' ihould  be  delivered  from  it  :  and  was  it  not  for  this 
^^  hope,  it  cannot  be  fiippofed — it  would  be  a  refleftion  on 
*^  the — benevolence  of  the  Deity  to  fuppofe,  that  they 
*'  would  have  been  fubjecled  to  it/'*  But  if  this  fubjeclion 
to  vanity  by  God  be  perfecllyjuft,  what  right  have  we  to 
expect,  that  God  v/ill  deliver  all  men  from  the  confe- 
quences  of  it  I  Have  v/e  a  right,  without  a  divine  pro- 
mife to  expe6i:,  that  God  will  fufier  none  of  the  fmful  race 
of  men,  to  bear  the  confequences  of  a  juft  and  wife  con- 
"ftitution?  And  v/ould  it  be  a  reflection  on  the  Deity,  not 
to  expect  this  I 

*  P.  102.  Cv. 


ia^  .    DoSfor  Os  argument  frora 

So  that  this  whole  argument  of  Dr.  C.  implies  that 
God  in  fubjecting  mankind,  on  account  of  Adam's  fm, 
^'  to  a  ftate  of  fuftering,"  made  an  unjuft  conftitution. 
Yet  Dr.  C.  himfeif  abundantly  holds,  that  this  is  a  real 
conilitution  of  God. 

At  the  fame  time,  it  is  implied  in  all  this,  that  if  man- 
kind had  been  thus  fubjefted  to  vanity,  in  confequence  of 
their  own  per fonal  fin;  theymightjuftly  have  been  left  with- 
out hope.  Thus  it  is  really  granted  by  Dr.  C.  after  all  his 
labour  to  prove  the  contrary,  that  the  perfonal  fins  of 
men,  deferve  a  hopelefsflate  of  fuiiering.  And  the  whole 
queftion  in  the  prefent  view  of  it,  comes  to  this,  Whether 
the  perfonal  aftual  fins  of  mankind,  under  the  prefent  di- 
vine conftitution,  be  real  fins,  and  deferve  the  puniihment 
juftly  due  to  fin  :  or  whether  thcfe  fins  be  not  excufable, 
becaufe  they  are  the  eftablifhed  confequence  of  Adam's 
tranfgreffion,  and  not  the  confequence  of  their  own  volun- 
tary acl.  Or  in  other  words,  whether  the.  moral  evil  of 
any  aftion  confiit  in  the  nature  of  the  action  itfelf,  or  in 
its  caufe  or.  antecedents.  Of  this  queftion  I  ihould  bev-ery 
willing  to  enter  into  the  difculTion,  were  it  neceffary  :  but 
as  it  has  been  fo  particularly  confidered  by  another  author, 
I  beg  leave  to  refer  to  him.*  I  beg  the  reader's  patience 
however,  while  I  make  only  one  or  two  brief  obferva- 
tions. 

If  the  prefent  a6lioris  of  mankind  be  excufable,  becaufe 
they  are  the  confequence  of  Adam's  tranfgreffion  and  not 
of  their  own  previous  finful  actions  or  volitions,  in  the 
firft  inftance  ;  it  will  follow  that  there  is  no  fin  or  'moral 
evil  in  the  world,  nor  ever  has  been.  All  the  prefent  ac- 
tions of  men,  if  they  be  excufable,  are  no  moral  evil. 
The  fame  is  true  of  all  the  actions  of  men  ever  fince  the 
fall  of  Adam.  And  even  Adam's  tranfgreffion  itfelf  is  no 
moral  evil  ;  for  this  did  not  take  place  in  confequence  of 
any  previous  criminal  choice  or  action ;  becaufe  by  fuppo- 
fition,  that  tranfgreiTion  was  the  firft  fin  committed  by 
man.  Whatever  tranfgreifion  he  firft  committed,  is  the 
very  tranfgreifion  of  which  we  are  fpeaking  :  and  it  is 
abfurd  to  talk  of  a  fin  previous  to  the  firft  fin, 

CoNCEPvNiNG  Dr.  C's  idea,  that  mankind  are  fubje^led 
to  mortality,  infirmity,  and  the  infiueYice  of  bodily    appe- 
tites, 

*    Prefidsnt  Edv/ards's    Enquiry -into    Freedom    of  JVilj 
throughout ;  particularly  Part  11/.  Secf.  L 


Rom,  Fill.    19 — 24,  cmfidered,  195 

tites,  on  account:  of  Adam's  fm  only,  without  any  regard 
to  their  perfonal  fins  ;•  and  -that  this  fubjeclion  was  the 
eaufe  and  occafion  of  all  the  actual  trarifgreilions  and  tem- 
poral calamities' 'of  the  poflerity  of  Adam  ;  it  may  be  ob- 
ferved  ,"  . 

^-  "i.  That  forreafons  already  given,*  it  appears  not  to 
be  true,  that  Mortality  and  the  calamities  of  life  are  brought 
onmen  6'h -account  of  Adam's  fm  merely,  without  regard 
to  Ihe  pferfonal  demerit  of  thofe  who  fuffer  them. 

'  2.  That  the  human  race  was  indeed,  in  the  fentence 
of  ^od 'on  Adam,  fubjecled  to  infirmity  and  mortality  : 
but  it\^as  Tio  morefubjedted-  to  thefe,  than  it  was  to  de- 
pravity and  fm;  At  ieaft  to  afiert  the  contrary  would  be 
to  beg  an  important  point  in  difpute  :  and  to  be  fure,  Dr. 
Ci  could  not  with  any  confiilency  aiTert  the  contrary.  He 
holds  throughout  this,  and  all  his  other  works,  that  the 
human  race  is  fubjefted  to  infirmity  on  account  of  Adam's 
iin,  and  the  Doctor's  idea  of  this  infirmity  amounts  to  a 
proper  moral  depravity  of  nature.  All  that  is  meant,  or 
that  needs  to  be  meant,  by  the  moral  depravity  natural  to 
mankind,  in  this  fallen  ftate,  fo  far  as  that  depravity  is  dif- 
tinct  from  actual  fin,  is  fomething  in  our  nature,  which  uni- 
verfally  leads  to  a6lual  fm.  Whether  this  fomething  ex- 
jft  primarily  in  the  body  and  bodily  appetites,  or  primarily 
in  the  foul,  isperfedly  immaterial,  fo  long  as  it  is  an  un- 
faihng  fource  of  a6lual  fm,  as  Dr.  C.  manifcflly  confiders 
it.f  In  his  F'lvs  Dljfdrtat'ior.she  is  very  explicit  and  abun- 
dant in  this  matter.  His  words  are,  '^  In  confequence  of 
^^  the  opsration  of  appetites  and  inclinations  featcd  in  our 
^^  mortal  bodies,  we  certainly  /Ball,  without  the  interpo- 
'^  fition  of  prace — do  that— the  doing;  of  which  will  deno- 
'^  minate  us  the  ^captives  of  Jin  and  the  fei~vants  of  corrup- 
''  tion.''X  '^H^'{  [the  apoftle]  '^  afcribes  it  to  the  flefjj, 
^'  hymeiins-of'tke^dverbeamfg'^hflue'ftce  of  its  propenfi^ 
*'  ties  in  this  our  rprefent  mortal  'ftate,  that — we  do  that 
^[  which  our  minds  difapprove  ;''||   and  in  many  other  pai- 

fages  to  the  fame  effect.- So^triat  Dr.  C.  really,  though 

it  feems  undefigncdly,  held,  that  moral  depravity  of  nature 
corlies  upon  all  mankind,  on  account  of  Adam's  fm:  and 
his  favourite  conftruction  of  Rom.  V.  12;  *""^  And  fo  death 
'^  paiTed  upon  all  men,/or  thaf  (or  as  he  will  have  it, 
"oihefeupGn;  in  confequence  of  -which)  "  all  have  finned ;" 
...J'  comes 

f  See  page  190.   f  See  page  45,  &:c.   J  P.  277.   ||  Ibid. 


|p5  Do^or    C*s  argument  from  . 

comes  to  this  only ;  that  on  account  of  Adam'sfin,  a  dl» 
vine  fentence  was  denounced  on  the  whok  human  race, 
dooming  it  to  a  ftate  of  n^oral  depravity  :  in  cqnfequence 
of  which  moral  depravity  all  men  commit  atlnal  lin. 
What  then  has  the  Docftor  gained  by  the  conftruclion  of 
thrs  pafTage,  which  he  hes  laboured  w'  hardly  in  this  and 
his  ocher  works  to  edabliih;  and  in  which  he  claims  to  be 
an  originil ;  and  v.'hich  perhaps  is  the  only  particular  in 
his  v/hole  book,  with  relpect  to  which  he  has  a  right  to 
fet  up  this  claim  ?  It  is  alfo  curious  to  fee  a  gentleman  of 
I^r.  C's  abilities,  both  oppollng  and  defending  with  all  his 
might,  che  native  moral  depravity  of  human  nature  ! 

Reasons  have  been  already  given,  why  ivHlifigly  ought 
to  be  underftood  not  to  mean  through  the  fault  of  a  perfon  ; 
but  in  its  original  proper  fenfe,  iv'ith  the  confent  of  a  ptrfon. 
If  thofe  reafons  be  fuincient,  there  is  a  further  difficulty 
in  Dr.  C's  condruction  of  this  paliage,  efpecially  of  the 
20th  verie.  According;  to  his  conttruction  of  -cl/r;;  crea- 
turey  the  apofble  declares,  that  mankind  are  iubjed:  to  their 
bodily  appetites,  and  fo  to  lin,  not  willingly,  not  with  their 
own  confent.  But  is  itpofTible,  that  men  iliould  be  fub- 
jecl  to  bodily  appetites,  and  fnculd  commit  actual,  perfon- 

al  fin,  v/ithout   their   own    confent  ? If,  to  evade  this 

obfervation,  it  be  faid,  that  they  are  however  by  the  a61;  of 
God,  without  any  previous  confent  of  their  own,  fubjed- 
cd  to  frailty,  mortality,  bodily  appetites,  and  fo  to  lin  ; 
this  would  be  mere  trifling.  Who  ever  imagined,  that 
God  firlt:  waited  for  the  confent  of  mankind,  and  having 
obtained  their  confent,  eflablifhcd  the  conllitution,  by 
which  they  became  mortal,  frail,  fubjeft  to  the  influence 
of  their  bodily  appetites  and  \o  to  fin  ? 

Ai<TER  all,  Dr.  C's  expofition  ci  this  paragraph  in  Rom. 
VIII.  is  by  no  means,  even  on  his  own  principles,  a  proof 
of  univerfal  falvation.  ^is  tranHation  of  thofe  moft  im- 
portant words  in  the  scrti'^d  2iil:  verfes,  is  this,  ^^  The 
^*  creature  was  fubj acted  t6  vanity,  not  willingly  ;  but  by 
**  the  judicial  fentence  of  him,  Vv'ho  fubjecled  it,  in  ccnfe- 
''  quenc.e  ff  a  previou/^onpc,  that  even  this  very  creature 
^'  Ihould  be  delivered  from  its  flavery  of  corruption  into 
.  ^*  the  gleriT5!TsTtberty  of  the  children  of  God.^'  .  So  that 
the  utmoftf  which  this  pafTage  teaches,  according  to  his 
own  account,  is,  that  mankind  may  now  hopCy  that  they 
ihall  be  dehvered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the 

gloriou& 


Kom.    Fill,  19 — 24,   confida'ed,  197 

glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God.  But  what  if  there 
be  a  foundation  to  hope  that  this  will  be  the  cafe  ?  Does  it 
thence  follow,  that  this  hope  will  certainly  hz  fulfilled  ?  In. 
confequence  of  the  death  of  Chriif  and  the  proclamation 
of  the  gofpel,  there  is  a  door  of  hope  fet  open  to  all  men. 
But  does  it  hence  follow,  that  all  men  will  certainly  enter 
in  at  this  door,  and  fecure  the  bleinngs  tor  which  there  is 
a  foundation  to  hope  ?  D.  C.  \vould  doubtlefs  grant,  that 
there  is  a  door  of  hope  opened  to  mankind  in  general,  that 
they  may  be  faved  immediatel}'-  after  death,  i  et  he  wcuid 
not  pretend,  that  this  hope  is  realized.  God  delivered 
the  Ifraelites  out  of  Egypt  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  gave  hcpe 
that  even  that  generation  v»'ould  enter  the  promifed  land. 
Yet  this  hope  was  not  fulfilled. — — There ibre,  though  it 
fiiould  be  granted,  that  God  hath  fubjecled  manldnd  to 
vanity  in  h'jpc,  that  they  ihali  be  delivered  from  it,  into 
the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  cf  God,  it  wcuid  by 
no  means  follow,  that  all  men  will  be  faved  :  and  Dr.  C. 
is  entirely  miftaken,  when  he  fays,  *'  Mankind  univerial- 
*^  \y  is  expreffl}'  made,  in  the  2ifl  verfe,  the  fubjecl  of 
'^  this  glorious  immortality. ''*  No  fuch  thing  is  exprefih/ 
faid,  and  in  thefe  words  he  contradicts  his  own  paraphrafe 
of  that  verfe,  in  which  he  pretends  no  more,  than  that 
there  is  a  foundation  for  hope,  that  mankind  ihrll  attain  to 
a  glorious  immortality. 

In  the  preceding  remarks  on  Dr.  C's  conilruction  of 
this  pafTage,  the  fenfe,  whicii  I  fuvpoi'e  to  be  the  true  one, 
hath  been  fufficiently  expreffed.     \et   it   m.ay   be  proper 

here  briefly  to  repeat  it. The  earnell  expectation  of 

the  creation  waiteth  for  the  manifef^ation  of  the  fons  of 
God.  For  the  creation  is  fubjefl  to  that  ufe  to  which  it  is 
applied  by  finful  men,  which,  as  to  the  end  cf  its  exigence, 
the  divine  glory,  is  in  its  own  natural  tendency,  vain  and 
unprofitable,  and  in  many  refpects  pofitivelyMinful  ;  I  fay, 
to  this  it  is  fubjeftnot  voluntarily,  but  on  account  of  him, 
for  the  fake  of  his  glory,  (<^i«  governing  the  accuiV.ti\  e)  cr 
for  the  accompliihment  of  the  myilerious,  but  v.  iie  and 
glorious  purpofes  of  him,  who  fubjecled  the  fame  in  hnr,s, 
that  this  fame  creation  ihall  be  delivered  from  this  u.ipro- 
fitable  ^nd  flnful  ufe,  which  mav  jullly  be  tonfidered  as  a 
ftate  of  bondage  to  it,  into  a  liberty,  in  leveral  important 
refpefto,  fimilar   to  that  of  the   children  of  God  ;  cr  at 

*  ^  leait 

1 P-  mr 


t9^'  Do(^or  Os  argument  fnm 

kail  fliall  be  delivered  at  tile  time,  when  the  children  of 
God  fliall  be  admitted  to  the  enjoyment  of  their  nioft  glori- 
ous liberty.  For  we  know,  that  the  whole  creation  groaiii- 
eth  and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now,  by  reaion  of 
that  vile  abufe  and  perverfion,  which  is  made  of  it  by  fm- 
ful  men,  and  throuf^h  dellre  of  that  deliv^erance  jult  mentfi^ 
oned,   and  in  due  time  to  be  siJ'anted  it.     "       -  ' 

Beside  the  obfervatiohs  on  particular  parts  of  Dr.  C's 
confcrudion  of  Rom.  VIII.  fome  more    c-eneral   remarks 

occur. One  is,  that  his    confcru-flion  implies,  that  the 

divine  lav/  is  unjuit,  and  cannot  be  executed  conliitelitly 
withjuuice.  He  ni3''s,*  that  man  on  the  foot  of  Tilers' 
la-jj,  without  grace,  is  in  bondage  to  bodily  appetites  :  there-' 
fore  on  the  foot  of  mere  law,  v/ithout  grace,  there  is  no 
hope  for  him.  And  he  fjDeaksf  of  the  cafe  of  mankind  as 
remediiefs,  without  the  grace  nianifeiled  in  Jefus  Chrift. 
Yet  in  the  fame  page  he  fays,  ^*  Itis  the  thought,  that 
^'  mankind  v/ere  fubje6led  to  fufFering,  not  remedilefll^^, 
^^  but  with  an  intention  of  mercy,''  and  ^^  it  is  this  thought 
*^  only,  that  can  reconcile  the  unavoidable  fufferings  of 
"^  the  race  of  m.en,  as  occafioned  by  the  lapfe  of  Adam, 
*^  with  the  perfections  of  God.''  So  that  God  made  a 
law,  which  coald  not  be  executed,  confiftently  with  his 
perfections,  and  he  was  obligated  in  juftice  to  Ihew  merc^ 
through  Chrill:,  to  mankind.  By  mere  law  men  were  re— 
niedilefs,  and  if  they  had  been  faffered  to  remain  in  that 
remedilefs  ftate,  as  they  would  have  remained  in  it  with- 
out Chrift  and  the  gofpel,  fuch  .a  difpenfation  could  not 
have  been  reconciled  Vv-ith  the  perfections  of  God.  There- 
fore the  divine  lav/  cannot  be  reconciled  With  jultice,  or 
with  the  perfections  of  God. 

According  to  Dr.-  C.  vanity  included  in  it  hcndags 
to  bodily  appetites,  as  well  as  hond.'ige  to  death,  I  There- 
fore, as  God  could  not  condftently  with  his  perfecStions, 
fubject  mankind  to  vanity,  without  an  intention  of  mercy  ;|j 
and  as  it  would  be  a  reflection  on  the  Deity,  '  to  fuppofe, 
that  he  has  fubjefted  mankind  to  vanity,  without  hope  of 
deliverance  : II II  therefore  on  thefe  principles,  God  could 
not  conliftently  with  his  perfections  and  character,  avoid 
giving  mankind  a  ground  of  hope  of  deliverance  from  lin, 
or  he  could  not  withhold  the  grace  of  the  gofpel  :  but  he 
was  obliged  in  juftice  to  his  own  character,  to  deliver  men 

from 


*P,    100.    t  P-   122.    %  P.    lOp.     IIP.    122.   'III!  P. 


10 


J' 


Rom,   VIIL    19—24,     confidered,  19^ 

from  both Tiiii  and  the  fuiFerings  of  this  life,  and  It  may  be 
prefumed,  that  I>r.C.  would  have  confented  to  add,  and 
from  the  fuiFerings  of  hell  too.  Where  then  is  the  grace 
.of  the  gpfpel,  and  of  the  gift  of  Chriil?  In  the  gift  of 
Chriit,  in  the  inftitution  of  the  -gofpel,  and  in  every  thing 
pertaining  to  it,  fo  far  as  Vv^as  neceiTary  to  our  deliverance 
from  lin  and  punifament,  God  has  done  no  more  than  was 
neceffary  to  fave  his  own  character  from  reflexions  and  re- 
proach. 

It  may  be  further  remarked,  that  Dr.  C*  argues,  that 
becaufe  men  are  fubjected  to  a  ftate  of  fufFering,  not 
through  their  own  perfonal  difobedience  ;  *^  it  is  congru- 
*^  OU3  to  reafon  to  think,  that  they  ihculd  be  fubjeded  to 
^'  it,  not  finally  .^^  But  why  does  he  fay,.  *'not  firxally"? 
He  might  with  the  fame  ftrength  of  argument  have  faid, 
not  at  all.  The  calamities  of  this  hfe,  with  temporal 
death,  are  inflicii^d  on  mankind,  either  as  a  puniihment,  or 
as  fovereign  and  v/ife  difpenfations  of  Providence.  If  they 
be  inflicled  as.a  puniflrment,  without  any  fm,  by  which  the 
fubjecTrs  deferve  them,  they  are  as  real  an  injury  as  endlefs 
mifery  would  be,  if  it  were  in{ii6led  as  a  puniihment,  in 
hke  manner  without  any  fm,  by  which  it  iliould  be  de- 
ferved.  And  if  God  do  indeed  injure  his  creatures  in  a  leis 
degree,  he  is  an  injurious  being  :  and  what  fecurity  have 
we  concerning  iuch  a  being,  that  he  will  not  injure  thcra 

in  the  higheil  polTible  degree  ? So  that  if  God  be  a  juft 

being,  as  it  is  agreed  on  all  hands,  that  he  is,  it  is  equal- 
ly ' '  congruous  to  reafon  to  think,"  that  he  would  not 
fubjecT:  h's  creatures  to  a  temporary  flate  of  fufFering,  as  a 
punifhment,  without  any  lin,  by  which  they  deferved  it, 
as  that  he  would  not  fubjecT;  them  to  a  ftate  of  iinai  fufFer- 
ing.    • 

If  itbe  faid,  that  death  and  the  calamitiesof  hfe  are  not 
a  puniihment  of  mankind,  but  mere  fovereign,  wife  dif- 
penfations  of  providence  ;  this  fuppofition  opens  a  door  for 
endlefs  mifery.  For  how  do  we  know,  that  the  fame  fo- 
vereign wifdom„  which  is  now  fuppofed  to  infiicl  tempo- 
ral evils  on  m.ankind,  may  not  alfo  fee  fit  to  infiid  on  them 
endlefs  evils  ? 

According  to  Dr.  C.  ,men  areby  adivine  conftitution 
fubjecled  to  vanity  including  mortahty,  infelicity  and  bond- 
age to  bodily  appetites.     But   why    was   this  conftitution 

made  I 


■*P.    10 


:>' 


<i 
CC 
€i 
<C 
<< 
<6 


*:ioo  Do^or  Cs  argument  frotii 

made  ?  Was  it  made  for  the  greater  happinefs  of  ever|f 
individual,  or  of  the  fj'^ftem,  or  of  both  ?  Which  ever  of 
thefe  anfvvers  be  given,  it  will  follow,  that  evil,  both  na- 
tural and  moral  is  fubfervient  to  good  ;  and  is  introduced, 
if  not  in  th-j  firft  inftance  df  Adam's  tranfgreflion,  yet  in 
every  other  initance,  by  the  pofitive  deliga  and  conftitu- 
tion  of  God.  Evil  therefore  both  natural  and  moral, 
makes  a  part  of  the  fcheme  of  God,  takes  place  by  his 
coniiitution,  and  is  fubjecl:  to  his  controul  ?  V/hat  then 
becomes  of  tiie  fcheme  of  felf-determining  power,  for 
u'hichDr.  C,  is  fo  zealous  an  advocate  ?  And  here  how 
juftly  may  man)?-  paffages  in  Dr.  Cs  writings  be  retorted  ? 
Particularly  the  following ;  **  If  men's  vohtions  and 
their  ccnfeq*uent  elTeds,  are  the  refult  of  invariable  ne- 
celuty  in  virtue  of  fome  exterior  caufes  fo  inviolably 
connected,  as  that  they  will  and  mull  come  to  pafs, 
the  author  of  this  conneclion,  which  r.ccording  to  this 
plan  is  God,  is  the  only  eiticient  and  real  author  of 
vvhatcver  has  been,  or  ihall  hereafter  be  brought  into 
event  ;  not  excluding  any  of  the  moll  complicated  vil- 
lanies  that  have  been,  or  may  be  perpetrated  by  any  of 
*'  the  fons  of  Adam.  Is  this  a  fcheme  of  thoughts  fit  to 
*'  be  embraced  ov  iiitellio-ent  creatures  ?''* 

Beside,  if  this  coniiitution  were  made  for  the  greater 
happinefs  of  every  individual,  then  every  individual  is  more 
happy  than  he  would  have  been,  if  he  had  not  been  fub- 
jecled  to  vanity;  and  then  there  is  no  fuch  thing  aspunilh- 
ment  in  the  fubjedliop  to  vanity,  or  in  any  of  its  confe- 
quences  ;  nor  any  foundation,  v/ith  a  view  to  the  private 
interefl  of  any  man,  to  regret  any  of  the  evils  of  this  life^ 
or  of  that  which  is  to  come. 

It  does  not  ho\vever  appear  to  be  facl,  that  every  in- 
dividual is  in  this  life  rendered  more  happy,  by  the  evils 
which  he  fiiffers  here  :  and  to  fay  that  he  will  be  render- 
ed by  them  more  happy  on  the  v/hole  hereafter,  neither  ap- 
pears to  be  fa6l,  nor  to  be  capable  of  proof.  How  will  a- 
ny  man  prove,  that  the  Sodomites  v/ill  on  the  whole  be 
more  happy,  tlii^n  Enoch  and  Elijah,  who  never  tafled 
death? 

If  all  men  be  fubje^ed  to  vanity,  to  promote  not  their 
perfonal  good,  but  the  good  of  the  fyflem,  and  the  good 
of  individuals   be  given  up  to  th:s  end ;  why  m.ay  we  not 

in 
*  Benevolence  of  the  Deity,  .P.   136. 


Col.  I.   19,  20,  confidered,  Soi 

an  the  fame  way  account  for  endlefs  punifliment? If  it 

be  not  confiftent  with  the  divine  perfedions  to  fubjeO-  men 
to  fuiTeringj  unlefs  it  ifTue  in  their  perfonal  good ;  then  it 
is  not  coniiftent  with  the  divine  perfections  to  punifli  at  allj 
either  in  this  world,  or  the  future. 


C    H    A     P.      Xi. 


Containing  remarks  m  Dr.  Cs  argumenis  from  Col.  I.  iQy 
20.      Eph.   J.    10.   and  i   Tim.  II.   4. 


THE  firjfl  of  thofe  texts  is:  ''  For  it  plcafed  the  Fn- 
*'  th°r,  that  in  him  all  fallnefs  fnould  dwell.  And 
^'  having  made  peace  by  the  blood  of  the  crofs,  by  him 
^^  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himfelf :   by  him,  I  fay,  whe-^ 

*^   ther  they  be  things  in  earth,  or  things  in  heaven. '^ > 

T)t.  C's  fenfe  of  this  paffage  is  tliis :  "  *It  pieafed  the 
*^  Father — by  Jefus  Chriit— to  change  back  all  things  to 
'^  himfelf — to  change  the  flate  of  this  lower  world,  of  the 
*^  men  and  of  the  things,  whether  they  be  on  earth,  or 
'^  in  the  aerial  heaven,  that  encompafTes  it."  It  was  h'is 
opinion,  that  to  reconcile  all  tliefe  things,  is  to  rechange 
their  (late,  or  bring-  them  back  to  that  i'cate  they  v/ere  cri- 
ginallyin.f  AVith  reference  to  mankind,  he  lays,:]:  '*  by 
'^  Chrift  their  ftate  was  changed  back,  they  v/ere  abfolute- 
'^  ly  brought  back  to  the  condition  they  would  have  been 
*^  in,  had  it  not  been  for  the  lapfe  ;  what  I  mean  is,  that 
'^  they  were  abfolutely  and  unconditionally  put  into  lalva- 

*'  bie  circumftances." But  what  follows  from  all  this  ; 

One  v/jould  think  Dr.  C.  had  forgotten  himfelf.  Suppc- 
fmg  -all  this  v/ere  granted,  would  it  follow,  that  all  men 
will  be  faved  ?  That  becaufe  they  are  in  falvable  circum- 
fiances,  therefore  their  aftual  falvation  will  be  eifecl-ed:'  No, 
no  more  than  from  the  original  ilate  of  Adam,  it  followed 
that  he  would  never  fall,  fie  v/as  indued  v;ith  a  pov/er  10 
ftand  :  he  was  in  fuch  circumftances,  that  he  might  have 
continued  in  his  original  innocence.  Vet  he  fell.  00, 
though  it  be  granted,  that  all  men  are  hy  Chrift  put  into 
falvable  circamftances,  yet  through  their  obfcinate  impeni- 
tence and  unbelief  they  mav  fail  of  jliis  great  falvation. — ^ 

b  d  '  Doubtlef^ 

^  P.  127.      fP-    129.      t  P-  132. 


202  Do^or  Cs  argument  from 

Doubtlefs  Dr.  C.  believed,  that  by  Chrift  the  (late  of  man- 
kind isfo  changed,  that  they  are  all  lalvable,  or  may  be 
faved^  immediately  after  the  end  of  this  world.  But  this 
notwithitanding,  he  beheved  alfa,  that  a  great  part  of 
mankind  would  die  impenitent,  and  that  none  oi  them  would 
be  faved  within  a  thoufand  years  of  the  end  of  this  world, 
and  fome  of  them  not  till  after  ages  of  ages. 

But  in  aid  of  his  argument  from  thispaifage,  the  Dodlor 
brings  in  again,  Rom.  V.  lo.  ^'  For  if  when  we  were 
'^  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of 
^^  his  fon  ;  much  more  being  reconciled,  we  fnall  be  faved, 
^^  by  his  life."  I  have  formerly  remarked  on  the  Doctor's' 
ufe  of  this  pafTage;  and  need  not  repeat  thofe  remarks.  It 
may  be  obferved,  however,  that  the  manner  of  his  ap- 
plying this  palTage  to  ftrengthen  his  argument  from  Col. 
I., 20,  really  implies,  that  this  lafi:  text  taken  by  itlelf,  con- 
tains no  ar2:ument  at   all,  and  therefore    ouo-ht  never    to 

O  '  CD 

have  been  introduced  as  a  proof.  Whatever  force  there 
is  in  it,  to  prove  univerfal  falvation,  depends  entirely,  ac- 
cording  to  Dr.  C's  ftating  of  the  matter,  on  Rom.  V.  10, 

which  has  been  confidered  already. So  that  if  his  fenfe 

of  Col.  I.  20,  be  true,  it  does  nothing  towards  proving 
the  falvation  of  all  men. 

I  DO  not  however  mean  to  fuggeft,  that  Dr.  C^s  fenfe 
is,  in  my  opinion,  the. true  one.  It  is  impolfible,  that  all 
things  fliould  be  brought  back,  in  all  refpecls,  to  their  ori- 
ginal ftate.  All  mankind  cannot  now  live  in  the  garden  of 
Eden.  It  cannot  be  again  fad,  that  all  tlie  knowledge  of 
God  poiTefTed  by  men,  ihould  be  fuch  as  is  derived  from 
either  the  works  of  creation  and  providence,  or  from  im.- 
mediate  intercourfe  of  God  and  angels  with  men.  Nor 
can  it  be  ever  again  true,  that  God  is  propitious  to  men 
immediately,  without  a  mediator.  In  thcfe,  and  perhaps 
many  other  refpeccs,  mankind  cannot  be  changed  back  to 
their  original  flate.  But  if  once  the  advocates  for  univer- 
fal falvation  admit  of  limitations,  and  fay,  that  all  things 
will  however  be  brought  to  their  original ftate  in  many  re- 
fpecls,  the  believers  in  endlefspunifliment  too  muft  be  al- 
lowed to  apply  their  limitations ;  and  they  will  allow,  that 
as  the  original  ftafe  was  a  flate  of  order,  regularity  and 
due  fubordination,  wherein  every  perfon  and  thing  were 
hi  their  proper  places ;  fo  in  this  fenfe  all  things  will  final- 


Col.  J.   19,  20,  confidered.  203 

ly  be  brought  back  to  their  original  ftate,  and  order   will 
be  again  reflored  to  the  univerfe. 

Nor  does  the  verb  «,roy_ai.«>-^i  i«  fignify   in    general   to 
ehange  any  thing  back  to  its  former  ftate.  For  inftance,  if  two 
men  had  been  long  and    habitual    enemies  to  each  other; 
and  if  having  for  a  while  become  friends,    they  ihould  re- 
turn  to  their  former  enmity  ;  I  believe  no  critic  m   the 
Greek  language  would  think  this  return   to  their  enmity, 
would  be  properly  exprelTed   by    «;ro>c«':;^xaTla',  reconcile. 
When  the  Jews  were  brought  home    from  the  Babylonifli 
captivity,  they  were  changed  back  to  their    former  ftate. 
But  is  this  change  ever  expreffed  by  rtTo/.«.ijt?.«t  u&-,  reconcile.' 
This  verb  is  never  ufed  in  the  New  Teftament,  but  to 
fignify  a  change,  whereby  thofe  who  were  at  enmity,  be- 
come friends.      This  obfervation  is  true  of  all  thofe  words 
of  the  fame  derivation,    on  which    Dr,  C.   cririciies  lo  a- 
bundantly  from  page  128,   to  142.      It  is  therefore  not  ap- 
phcable  to  all  the  things  on  this  earth,  and  in  the  aerial  hea- 
ven, unlefs  it.  be  by  the  figure  profopopoeia.  By  that  figure 
^  indeed  every  thing   animate   and  inanimate   may   be  laid 
.    to  be  ahenated  from  man,  in  confequence   of  his  fm  ;^  and 
to  be  reconciled  to  him  in  confequence  of  the  blood  ot  the 
crofs,  and  of  the  return  of  man  to  God  through  Chnft* 
3ut  if  this  w«re  the  idea  of  Dr.   C.  he  Ihould  have  given 
up  his  objection  to  the  fenfe  of  Rom.   VIII.    19,  &c,    gi- 
ven by  the  behevers  in  endlefspunifhm.ent ;  and  at  the  fame 
time  he  would  have  virtually  given  up  his  own  fenfe  of  that 
palTage . 

iTisflrange,  that  Dr.  C.  as  well  as  the  tranflators  of 
the  bible,  fliould  render  the  Vv-ords  s/c  «t/1ov  in  Col.  I.  20, 
unto  himfelf,'  In  the  preceding  verfe  we  have  sv  a^V-  ;  ni 
the  20th  verfe  we  have  ^ d  «t/1c»y,  rVt/poi,'  «6lo:,  and  again* 
o'/'  A^loc/.  Now  it  feems  very  odd,  that  in  this  multiplied 
ufe  of  ay  Kc  in  its  various  cafes,  one  inftance  only  fhould  be 
feleded  from  the  relt,  and  rendered  himfelfy  meaning  the 
Pather,  ana  in  all  the  other  inftances  it  ihould  be  referred  to 
Chrifl.  No  perfon  without  prepoiTefTion,  conftruing  this 
palFage,  would  render  it  in  that  manner.  It  is  altogether 
unnatural  to  fuppofe,  but  that  ai^lo?  refers  to  the  fame  per- 
fon in  all  thefe  inftances,  and  ought  to  be  rendered  accord- 

It  is  further  to   be  obferved  concerning    arcxA^a>.x«  .^^ 

and  )4«1«xa«>7«-»,  that  in  all  inftances  in  which  they  occur  in 

'  ""  th? 


oQij  Do^or  Cs  argument  from   . 

the  New  Teflament,  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the  Apo- 
crypha, the  perfon  to  whom  the  iabjeft  of  the  propolition^ 
is  faid  to  be  reconciled,  is  never  once  exprelTed  in  the  ac- 
cufative  cafe  governed  by  the  prepofition  m  ;  but  is  always 
exprefied  in  the  dative  cafe.  Hence  it  may  be  inferred 
that  *.c  aiy^cv  in  Col.  I.  20,  does  not  mean  the  perfon  to 
whom  all  thino-s  in  heaven  and  earth  are  reconciled  :  but 
that  it  means,  that  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth  -are  re- 
conciled to  each  other,  into  him  :  i.  e.  fo  as  to  be  broup-ht 
into  Chrift,  to  be  united  under  him  as  their  head,  and  be 
intcrefted  in  the  common  advantages  and  blefTmgs  of  his 
glorious  kinQ-dom. 

To  be  in  Chr'ifl  is  a  common  phrafe  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment  to  exprefs  fubjeclion  to  Chriil,  and  an  interelt  in  the. 
bleihngs  of  his  kingdom ;  and  to  be  reconciled  into  Chrifty 
may  mean  to  become  united  to  him  by  faith,  to  become 
fubjecl  to  him  in  obedience,  and  to  be  interefted  in  all  the 
blelTmgs  of  his  kingdom.* 

By  iin  anp-els  and  men.  Tews  and  Gentiles,  became 
alienated  from  each  other  ;  and  men  in  general,  by  the  pre- 
dominancy of  felf-love,  became  virtually  enemies  to  each 
Other.  Nov/  it  pleafed  the  Father  to  reconcile  by  Jefus 
ChFiil:,  angels  and  men,  Jews  and  Gentiles  to  each  other, 
and  to  diffufe  by  his  grace  a  fpirit  of  benevolence  among 
them,  whereby  they  ihould  love  their  neighbour  as  them- 
felves.  4nd  as  to  the  univerfal  term  all  things,  we  cannot 
take  it  in  its  literal  and  utmoft  extent,  unlefs  by  the  figure 
before  mentioned,  which  Dr.  C.  cannot  admit,  without 
'giving  up  what  he  mofl  earneftly  contends  for,  in  his  corn- 
inentonRom.  VIII.  19,  «Scc.  But  if  we  once  admit  a 
limitation  of  that  univerfal  term,  every  one  muft  be  al- 
lov/ed  to  propofe  his  own  limitation,  and  fome  doubtlefs 
Vv^ill  infift,  that  it  extends  to  angels  and  to  believers  only 
from  among  men  :  as  it  is  faid,  that  all  Judea,  and  all  the 
region  round  a,bout  Jordan,  were  batized  by  John  :  all 
men  counted  John  that  he  was  a  prophet :  all  men  came  to 
Chrift,  John  III.   26. 

But  if  we  il-ould  allow,  that  ^//things  in  heaven  and 
earth  include   all  mankind ;  (lili  even  in  this  extent  it  is 

true. 


* 


Whether  ills  criticifra  on  the:  ivords  ?;?  tt^V.v^  b^  j'^'fi  ^^ 
mfy  it  affccss  not  the  main  quefiionof  the  falvatlon  of  all 
men* 


Col,   L   19,   20^  confiderecL  205 

true,  that  it  pleafed  the  Father  to  reconcile  all  things  ;  but 
in  fuch  a  fenle,  as  not  to  imply  the  ialvation  of  all  men. 
This  is  true  in  the  fame  fenfe,  in  which  God  hath  no  plea- 
fure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked,  Ezek.  XXXIil.  1 1  ;  or 
in  the  death  of  him  that  dieth,  Chap.  XVIII.  32  ;  in  the 
fame  fenfe  in  which  God  was  unwilling  to  give  up  Eph- 
raim,  Hof.  XI.  8  ;  and  in  the  fame  fenfe  in  which  Chrift 
was  unwilling  to  give  up  the  inhabitants  of  Jerufaiem,  and 
would  have  gathered  them  together,  as  a  hen  gathereth 
her  chickens  under  her  wings  ;  though  they  would  not. — 
The  deflruction  of  the  fmner  is  not  in  itfelf  agreeable  to 
God  ;  as  the  puniHiment  of  a  child  is  not  in  itfelf  agreeable 
to  a  good  parent.  Yet  as  a  good  parent  may,  to  fecure 
the  general  good  of  his  family,  puniih  a  difobedient  child  ; 
fo  God,  to  fecure  the  general  good  of  his  kingdom,  may 
puniih  a  rebellious  creature.  As  the  good  parent  who, 
to  prevent  that  punifhment  to  which  his  difobedient  and 
apoftate  child  mull,  going  on  in  his  difobedience,  be  fub- 
je6led,  ufes  all  proper  means  to  reclaim  him  ;  may  be  faid 
to  be  pleafed  with  the  idea  of  his  impunity  ;  £0  the  Deity 
who  ufes  all  proper  means  to  reclaim  all  mankind,  and  to 
reconcile  them  to  one  another,  may  be  faid  to  be  well  plea- 
fed with  the  idea  of  this  reconciliation,  or  to  choofe  to  re-, 
concile  all  men  to  one  another,  and  to  brino-  them  into 
Chrift.  In  itfelf  it  is  -the  object  of  his  choice  and  com- 
placency.  In  this  fenfe  it  pleafed  the  Father  to  recon- 
cile all  things  :   it  was  what  pleafed  him. 

On  the  whole  it  appears,  that  if  Dr.  C's  fenfe    of  this 
palFage  be'the  true  one,   it  affords  no  proof  at    all  of  uni- 

verfal  falvation  ; That  his  conftruclion  of  it   is  far  lefs 

favourable  to,  that  do'frrine,   than  that    v/hich  feems  to  be 

holden  forth  by  our  tranflation  ; That  if  this  lail  ccn- 

ftruction  be  adopted,  ftili  it  would  be  no  real  proof  of  uni— 
verfal  falvation,  for  two  reafons ;  (i)  That  the  univerial 
term  muft  be  limited,  and  therefore  may  be  fo  limited  as 
to  comprehend  angels  and  believers  only  of  all  nations.  (2) 
That  even  if  the  univerfal  term  be  extended  to  all  mankind, 
ftill  the  text  is  capable  of  a  conllru6lion  both  rational  and  arr- 
alogous  to  other  p.iffages  of  fcripture,  which  yet  does  by  no 
means  imply  univerfal  falvation..  And  the  fequel  of  the  apoC 
le's  difcourfe  favours  thislafl  conflru6non,  implying,  that  it 
pleafed  the  father,  or  was  in  itfelf  pleaimg  to  the  father,  to 
reconcile  all  men^  onthe  terms  of  the  gofpel,  amiliot  alifolute- 

^7 


2o6  Dodor  C^s  aj'gu7nent  from 

ly,  as  Dr.  C.  fuppofes.  The  fequel  is,  '^  And  you  that  were 
*'  fometime  alienated  and  enemies  in  your  mind  by  wicked 

'^  works,  yet  now  hath  he   reconciled to  preient  you 

^^  holy  and  unblamable  and  unreprovable  in  his  fight  :  if 
^^  ye  continue  in  the  faith  grounded  and  fettled,  and  be  not 
"  moved  away  from  the  hope  of  "the  gofpel.^^ — ' — Will  a- 
ny  man  pretend,  but  that  this  implies,  that  if  they  did  not 
continue  in  the  faith,  they  would  not  be  prefented  unblam- 
able in  the  fisht  of  God  l But  this  is  far  from  the  doc- 

trine  which  teaches,  that  all  mankind,  whether  believers 
or  unbelievers,  whether  they  continue  in  the  faith  or  not, 
Ihall  be  faved. 

Bffore  I  quit  this  part  of  the  Doctor's  bock,  I  fliall 
add  one  remark  more.  In  his  comment  on  this,  Col.  I.  20, 
and  on  Rom,  V.  10,  he  takes  great  pains  to  make  out  a  dou- 
ble reconciliation  to  be  taught  by  the  apoftle  Paul.  *^  The 
^^  one,"  he  fays,  ^^  means  that  change  of  ftate  ail  men 
^'  ar^  abfolutely  brought  into  by  the  death  of  Ghrift  ;  and 
*'  is  oppofed  to  the  condemnation  through  the  lapfe  of  the 
'^  one  man  Adam.  The  other  is  that  change  of  ftatC;, 
'^  which  is  connected  with  an  actual  meetnefs  for,  and  pre- 
'^  fent  intereii:  in,  eternal  life.*''  But  thefe  two  reconci- 
liations are  really  but  one  ;  for  the  definition  which  the 
Doftor  himfelf  gives  of  the  latter,  perfectly  agrees  with 
the  former.  He  abundantly  holds,  that  ^^  that  change 
*'  of  ftate,  into  ^¥hic]l  all  men  are  brought  by  the  death  of 
"  Chrift,''  *^  is  connecled  with  an  actual  meetnefs  for, 
^'  and  prefent  intereft  in,  eternal  life  ;"  and  his  whole 
fcheme  implies  this  :  otherwife  there  is  no  certainty,  that 
all  men  will  be  faved,  in  confeq\ience  of  the  death  of 
Chrift.  The  Do£i:or  himfelf,  in  the  very  next  fentence  to 
that  juft  quoted,  allows,  that  the  former  reconciliation  is 
connecled  in  the  fcheme  of  God,  with  the  latter,  and  ivUl 
finally  iffiie  in  it.  Now,  if  his  lirit  kind  of  reconciliation 
be  connecled, with  that  kind,  which  is  conne6ted  with  ac- 
tual meetnefs  for,  and  prefent  interefl  in,  eternal  life  ;  then 
that  firft  kind  of  reconciliation  is  itfelf  connected  with  ac- 
tual meetnefs  for,  and  prefent  interefhin,  eternal  life.  If 
Jacob  be  connecled  with  Ifaac,  and  Ifaac  be  connected  with 
Abraham,  then  Jacob  too  is  connefted  Vv'ith  Abrnham. 

Let 


Eph.  J.   10,  confidered,  207 

Let  us  now  attend  to  the  Do^lor's  argument  from  Eph. 
[.  10  ;   '^   That  in  the  difpeniation  of  the  fuUnefs  of  times. 


*^  means  of  the  lapfe,  and  what  has  beenconfequent  there- 
*'  upon,  all  things  in  heaven  and  on  eart!i,were  got  into  a 
*'  broken,  difjointed,  diforderly  ftate  ;  and  the  good  plea- 
*^  fure  of  God  -.o  reduce  them  from  their  prefent  fepara- 
*'  ted,  diforderly  ftate,  into  one  duly-fubjeded  and  well 
''  fubordinated  whole,  may  very  fitly  be  fignified  by  the 
'^  phrafe,  «v«y.5eaAa;/i>ir«<r£«/  'irt  rrav'*,  to  gather  together 
'^  in  one  all  things.  And  this  I  take  to  be  the  thing  in- 
*'  tended  here.''*  But  what  is  this  to  the  purpofe  of  the 
falvation  of  all  men  ?  It  is  granted  on  all  hands,  that  by 
the  lapl'e,  all  things  relating  to  men,  got  into  a  broken, 
disjointed,  diforderly  ftate ;  and  that  it  is  the  good  plea- 
fure  of  God  to  reduce  them  from  their  prefent  feparated, 
diforderly  fiate,  into  one  dnly-fubjected,  well  fubordinated 
whole,  under  Chrift  as  their  head  ;  and  that  this  is  the 
thing  intended  by  the  apoftle  in  this  paffage.  But  if  the 
Doctor  fuppofed,  that  this  implied  the  repentance  and  fal- 
vation of  all  men,  it  was  but  a  mere  fuppofition  without 
proof. 

Suppose  a  rebellion  be  excited  in  the  kingdom  of  a  moft 
-wife  and  p-ood  prince,  and  this  rebellion  extend  far  and 
wide,  fo  as  to  throw  the  whole  kingdom  into  confufion. 
At  length  the  king's  fon,  at  the  head  of  his  armies,  fub- 
dues  the  rebels,  pardons  the  generality,  ientences  the 
leaders,  fome  to  the  gallows,  others  to  perpetual  imprifon- 
ment  ;  and  thus  reftores  peace,  tranquility,  good  order 
and  government.  Is  not  a  well  lubjecled  and  duly  fubor- 
dinated ftate  of  things  in  that  kingdom  nov/  reftored  and 
eftablifhed,  although  thofe  rebels  who  are  confined  m  pri- 
fon,  fti'U  retain  their  rebellious  tempers,  and  are  not  in  a 
ftate  of  happinefs  ? 

Nor  does  Dr.  C.  pretend  to  point  out  how  a  well  fubor- 
dinated ftate  of  things  proves  the  falvation  of  all  men; 
unlefs  it  be  ,in  the  following  and  other  pailages  not  more 
conclufive  :  ^'  If  God  created  all  men — by  Jefus  Chrift, 
•"'  we  may  eafily    colleft  hence,  how  he  comes  to  be  their 

*'   common  Father and  if  they  are  his  children,  how  fit, 

*^  proper  and  reaibnable  it  is,  that  they  fliould  be  fellow 

*  P.    144.  '  "  heirs 


Cc8  jD^.   C^s  Argument  from 

^'  heirs  to,  and  joint  partakers  in,  that  happy  ftate,  which 
*'  he  has  propoicd  ihall  take  place /^  &c.*  It  feems  then 
that  Eph.  I.  JO,  proves  that  all  men  will  be  laved,  not 
by  any  thing  contained  in  the  text  itfelf,  but  becaule  all 
men  are  the  creatures  of  God.  The  argument  is  this  : 
All  men  are  the  crej,tures  of  God,  therefore  that  well  fub- 
jeded  and  duly  fubordinaled  Itate  of  things,  which  is  to  be 
tfFe^ed  by  Jcfas  Chrift,  implies  the  falvation  of  all  men. 
It  fcems  then  that  that  well  fubjecled  and  duly  fubordinated 
Hate  of  things,  does  not  of  itfelf  imply  the  final  falvation 
of  all  men,  and  therefore  this  text  is  introduced  with  no 
force  of  arp-ument.  Dr.  C.  might  have  argued  juft  as 
forcibly  thus.  All  men  are  the  creatures  of  God,  therefore 
all  men  will  be  faved.  But  as  to  this  argument  it  is  en- 
tirely different  from  Epli.  I.  lo,  and  liadi  been  already 
confidered. 

We  are,  in  the  lafl  place,  to  attend  to  Dr.  C's  argu- 
ment from  I  Tim.  II.  4  ;  '^  Who  w^ill  have  all  men  to  be 
*'  faved,  and  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.'' — 
The  querdons  concerning  the  m.eaning  of  this  text,  are, 
as  Dr.  C.  jufily  obferves,  two  ;  (i)  Who  are  meant  by  all 
men  ;  whether  all  men  individually,  or  generically.  (2)  Is 
there  a  certain  conneclion  between  God's  willing,  that  all 
men  Ihould  be  faved,  and  their  actual  falvation. 

I.  Who  are  meant  by  all  men,  whether  all  men  indi- 
vidually, or  generically. Dr.  C.  gives  two  reafons,  why 

this  expreirion  faould  be  underilood  of  ail   men   mdividu- 
aily.. 

(i)  '^  That  God's  wiilingnefs  that  all  men  fhould  be 
'^  laved,  is  brought  in  as  an  argument  to  enforce  the  du- 
^'  ty  of  praying  for  all  men,'-'f  mentioned  in  the  iirfc  and 
fecond  verfes.  The  Doctor  takes  for  granted,  that  it  is 
our  duty  to  pray  for  all  men  individually  ;  and  then  con- 
cludes, that  all  men  individually  are  thofe,  vdiom  God 
wills  mould  be  faved.  But  it  is  by  no  means  true,  that 
we  are  to  pray  for  all  men  without  exception.  The  a- 
poftle  John  expreffly  mentions  a  lin  unto  death,  and  for 
thofe  who  commit  that  fin  v/e  are  not  to  pray  ;  i  John 
V.  16,  17.  Our  bleiTed  Saviour  not  only  did  not  in  facl 
pray  for  the  ^^"orld,  but  openly  and  in  the  moil  iblemn 
manner  avowed  the  omiihon  ;  John  XVII.  9.  And  the 
prophet  Jeremiah  was  forbidden  by  God,  to  pray  for  the 

Jews 
*  P.    160.     I  P.    164. 


Jews,  for  their  good  ;  Jer.  XIV.  ii.  So  that  when,  the 
apoftle  in  the  firfi:  verfe  of  the  context  now  under  conil- 
deration,  exhorts  to  pray  for  all  men,  we  muft  of  neceiiity, 
as  we  would  not  fet  the  fcriptare  at  variance  with  itfelf, 
Underlbnd  him  to  meaii  not  all  individuals  without  excep- 
tion. / 

Beside,  if  it  were  our  duty  to  pray  for  all  individuals, 
it  may  not  have  been  the  delir^'u  of  the  apoftle  in  this  pafu 
fage  to  inculcate  this  duty.  The  Jev/ilh  converts  to  chrif- 
tianity  were  full  of  prejudices  againfl  the  Gentiles,  and  a^ 
bove  all,  againlt  the  Gentile  kings,  and  thofe,  under  whofe 
authority  they  were  ;  and  v/ho,  in  their  opinion,  had  no 
right  to  exercife  authority  over  their  nation.  Therefore 
with  the  utmoft  propriety  does  the  apoltle  give  the  exhor- 
tation cantained  in  the  lirit  and  lecOnd  verfes  of  this  con- 
text, though  he  me^nt  no  more,  than,  that  Chriifians 
ihould  pray  for  the  Gentiles  of  every  nation,  as  v/ell  as  for* 
the  jews,  and  efpecially  for  kin*s  and  rulers  amono-  the- 
Gentiles. 

(2)  The  other  reafon  given  by  Dr.  C.  wlvf  all  vien 
ihould  be  underftood  of  all  men  ijidhiduully^  is  the  reafon 
given,  why  God  de fires  the  falvation  of  all  men,  viz.  that 
there  is  one  God,  and  one  mediator  between  God  and  men. 
^^This,''  he  fays,  '^  is  a  reafon,  which  extends  toallmen" 
mdividually,  *"'  v.'ithout  limitation."  V^ery  true  ;  and  it  is 
a  reafon,  v/hich  extends  to  all  men  generically  too :  and 
therefore  is  a  very  good  reafon,  why  we  Ihouid  pray  101* 
the  falvation  of  men  of  all  nations  ;  nor  is  there  any  thing 
in  'this  reafon,  which  proves,  that  the  apoftle  meant,  that 
all  men  individually  would  be  iaved. 

As  to' Dr.  C's  reafoning  in  the  follcv/ing  pafTage  ;*•' 
*'  God  is  as  truly  the  God  of  one  man,  as  of  another  ^ 
^^  and  there  js  therefore  the  fame  r'eafon  to  think,  that  he 
*^  fliould  be  defirous  of  the  falvation  of  every  man,  as  of 
**^  any  man  ;''  it  is  by  no  means  allowed  to  be  conclufive. 
It  depends  on  this  poftulate,  v\'hich  is  a  begging  of  the 
queftion  :  That  God  cannot  give  exiftence  and  other  com- 
mon benefits  to  a  man,  and  not  fave  him.  I  might  with 
the  fame  force  argue  thus ;  God  is  as  truly  the  God  of  one 
man,  as  of  anot,her;  therefore  there  is  the  lame  reafon  to 
think,  that  he  fhould  be  defirous  of  the  temporal  profpe- 
rity  of  every  man,  as  of  fome  men.     It  is  no  more  grant- 

E  c  ^^ 

"^  P.  164. 


fi&  Dot^or  Os  argument  from 

ed,  and  therefore  ought  no  more  to  be  aflerted,  without 
proof,  that  falvaiion  is  connected  with  this  circumflance, 
that  God  is  a  God  to  every  man,  in  the  fcnfe  in  which  it  is 
granted,  that  he  is  a  God  to  every  man,  than  that  tempo- 
ral profperity  is  connected  with  that  circumdance. 

Further,  that  all  men  individually  are  intended,  Dr. 
C.  argues  from  this,  that  the  apoftle  fays,  '*  There  is  one 
^^  mediator  between  God  and  men,  theman  Chrifl  Jefus." 
The  Doctor  fays,  that  the  mnn  Jefus  mediates  betv/een 
God  and  men  univerfally.  If  by  the  mediation  of  Jefus, 
the  Doclor  meant  fuch  a  mediation  as  will  certainly  iilue  in. 
the  f^dvation  of  all  men  ;  this  again  is  a  mere  humble  beg- 
ging of  the  quefl-ion.  But  if  he  meant  a  mediation  of  the 
following  defcription,  that  Chrift  hath  made  atonement  fuf- 
ficient  for  all  men  ;  is  now  offering  the  virtue  of  that  a- 
tonement  to  all  men  ;  and  is  ufmg  a  variety  of  means  to 
perfuade  all  men  to  accept  and  truft  in  that  atonement,  and 
to  return  to  God,  feeking  his  favor  and  eternal  life,  for  the 
fake  of  Chriil  alone  ;  it  follows  not  at  all  from  fuch  a  me- 
diation of  Chrift,  that  all  individuals  will  be  faved.  It  no 
more  follows,  than  from  the  fads,  that  God  led  the  Ifra- 
elites  out  of  Egypt  by  the  hand  of  a  mediator  ;  that  he 
gave  them  opportunity  to  enter  the  land  of  promife  ;  and 
that  that  mediator  vras  the  mediator  of  that  whole  gene- 
ration individually  ;  it  followed,  that  that  whole  generation 
individually,  would  certainly  enter  the  land  of  promife. 

TiK.  C.  fays,*  **  No  good  reafon  can  be  alTigned,  why 
*'  the  man,  Chrift  Jefus,  lliould  mediate  between  God  and 
'*  fome  men  only,  to  the  exchifion  of  others.^'*  Can  a  gobd 
reafon  be  afiigned,  why  Chrift  leads  to  repentance  in  this 
life,  fome  men  only,  to  the  exclufion  or  derelidion  of  o- 
thers  ?  When  fuch  a  reafon  ihall  be  alhgned,  doubtlefs  wc 
fhall  be  fupplied  with  a  reafon,  why  Chrift  fliould  efFedual- 
ly  and  favingly  mediate  in  behalf  of  fome  men  only. 

2.  The  other  queftion  concerning  the  meaning  of  this 
text,  which  alfoDr.  C.  notices/f  is,  Whether  there  be  a 
certain  connexion  between  God's  willing  in  the  itn^e  of 
this  text,   that  all  inen  diould  be   faved,   and  their  adual 

falvation. Dr.  C.   grants  that  men  as  free  agents  have 

power  to  oppofe  thofe  means  which  God  ufes  with  them  for 
their  falvation  ;  and  yet    holds    that  God  has  a  power  to 

\  counteract 

^'  P.  i6s.       i  i66 


I  Th7.  II.  4,   conjidered.  ^if 

<;ountera!?l,  in  a  moral  way,  this  oppofitlon  of  men.*  Of 
this  and  ocher  remarkable  things  in  Dr.  C.  on  the  fubjecl 
of  free  agency,  particular   notice  v/ill  be  taken    hereafter. 

In  the  mean  time  it  may  be  obferved,  that  it  appears 

from  various  pailages  of  fcripture,  that  God  is  frequently 
faid  to  ivUl  things  which  do  not  in  facl  come  into  exiitence, 
or  with  reipeft  to  which  his  will  is  not  efficacious  :  as  in 
the  following  psiTages :  Matt.  XXIII.  37.  *<  O  Jerufa- 
'*  lem,  Jerufalem,  thou  that  killeft  the  prophets  and 
'*  flioneft  them  Avhich  arc  fent  unto  thee  ;  how  often  would 
*'  I  J  w.-.r-ATo.^  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  even 
*'  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings  ;  and 
''  ye  vj^Aild  not  /"  Hof.  XI,  8  ;  "  How  fhall  I  give  ihee 
*'  up  Ephraim  ?  Kow  /hall  I  deliver  thee  Ifrael  I  How 
*'  /hall  i  make  thee  as  Admah?  hovv'  /hall  I  let  thee  as  Ze- 
^^  boim  ?  mine  heart  is  turned  within  me,  my  repentings 
*"'  are  kindled  together.''  Deut.  V.  28,  29  ;  ^*  They 
'^  have  well  faid  all  that  they  have  fpoken.  O  that  there 
^'  were  fuch  an  heart  in  them,  that  they  would  fear  me 
^^  and  keep  my  commandments  always  !  "  Chap.  XXXII. 
28,  29;  *^  For  they  are  a  nation  void  of  counfel,  neither 
^'  is  their  any  underftanding  in  them.  O  that  they  were 
**  wife,  that  they  underltood  this,  that  they  v/ould  con- 
"  fider  their  latter  end  !"  Pfal.  LXXXI.  13;  ''  O  that 
'^  my  people  had  hearkened  unto  me,  and  Ifrael  had  walk- 
''  ed  in  my  ways  ! ''  Ifai.  XLVIII.  18;  ''  O  that  thou 
'^  hadfl  hearkened  to  my  commandments!  Then  had  thy 
'^  peace  been  as  a  river,  and  thy  righteoufncfs  as  the  v/aves 
^^  of  thefea.''  Luke  XII.  47;  '^  And  that  fervant  which 
'^  knew  his  Lord's  -ojilly  and  prepared  not  himfelf,  nei- 
'^  ther  did  according  to  his  lu///,"  &:c.  Matt.  XXI.  31  ; 
^'  Whether  of  them  twain  did  the  will  of  his  Father  ? 
'^   They  lay  unto  him,   the  firft.'' 

Now  what  right  had  Dr.  C.  to  fuppofe,  that  the  uv// 
of  God  in  i  Tim.  II.  4,  is  not  ufed  in  the  fame  lenfe  as 
in  the  pa/Tages  juft  quoted  ?  And  if  it  be  ufed  in  the  fame 
{^w^^f  there  is  no  more  abiurdity  in  fuppofing  that  the  will 
of  God  /hould  be  relifted  in  the  one  cafe,  than  in  the  other  : 
no  more  abiurdity  in  the  fuppolition,  that  God  ihould  will 
the  falvation  of  all  men,  and  yet  all  fliould  not  be  iaved  ; 
than  that  he  /houldwill  to  gather  together  the  inhabitants  of 

Jerufalem, 

f  P.  166,  i6f. 


<^i^  Bo^or  Cs  sr^nment from 

Jerufaleni,  as  a  hen  gathereth  hsr  chickens  under  her 
wings  ;  and  yet  that  they  IbouM  not  be  thus  gathered. 

Beside  the  texts  quoted  above,  I  may  further  refer  to 
Ezck.  XVIII.  32;  **  I  have  no  pleafurc  in  the  death  of 
^^  him  that  dieth,  faith  the  Lord  God. ^'  Yet  his  death  did, 
py  the  words  of  this  text,  tidce  place  in  fricl.  So  that  here 
;s  a  mofl:  plain  inftance  of  an  event  v/hich  takes  place  con- 
trary, in  fome  fenfe,  to  the  pleafui'e  or  will  of  God.— 

Dr.  C's  reafoning  is  this ;  Whatever  God  wills,  will 
come  to  pais.  God  wills  the  falvation  of  all  men  ;  there- 
fore this  will  come  t-p  pafs,  To  apply  this  reafoning  to 
the  text  lafl  quoted,  it  will  iland  thus  ;  Whatever  God 
wills,  comes  to  pafs.  But  God  wills  the  continued  life  of 
him  that  dieth  ;  therefore  it  comes  to  pafs,  that  he  "who 
dieth,  does  not  die. 

The  truth  is,  God  Vv'ills  the  falvaticn  of  all  men,  in  the 
fame  fenfe  that  he  wills  the  immediate  repentance  and 
fandification  of  all  men  ;  or  as  he  wills  them  to  be  asper- 
feCc,  in  this  life,  as  their  heavenly  Father  is  perfect.  He 
nov/  cpmm.ands  all  men  every  where  to  repcnt,to  believe  the 
gofpcl  and  to  comply  with  the  neceilary  conditions  of  fal- 
vation :  and  complying  with  thofe  conditions,  they  fhall  be 
faved  immediately  after  the  prefentilate. — — So  that  God^s 
v/iliing  that  all  men  ihould  be  fiived,  no  more  proves  that 
all  men  vvill  be  faved,  than  his  willing  that  all  men  Ihould 
immediately  repent,  proves,  that  all  will  imm.ediatcly  re- 
pent ;  or  than  his  willing  that  all  men  jQiould  be  perfect  in 
this  world,  and  comply  with,  his  law  as  perfectly  as  the 
angels  do  in  heaven,  proves  that  thefe  things  will  adually 
take  place  in  this  world. 

It  is  prefumed,  that  Dr.  C.  would  not  have  denied, 
that  it  is  the  will  of  God  in  fome  fenfe,  and  that  a  proper 
fenfe  too,  that  all  men  be  brought  to  repentance  in  this 
ilate,  and  that  they  be  faved  immediately  after  this  ftate. 
Yet  God  does  not  efficachujly  will  either  of  thefe    things. 

Was  it  not  in  a  proper  fenfe  the  will  of  God,   that  our 

firft  parents  fhcuid  retain  their  original  innocence,  and  not 
by  their  apoftacy  deluge  the  world  in  fin  and  mifery  ?  I 
prefume  this  will  not  be  denied.  It  was^his  will,  if  it  was 
his  command.  But  if  it  was  the  will  of  God,  that  Adam 
fhould  ftand  and  not  fall  ;  the  will  of  God  in  this  cafe  was 
not  erficacious.  And  if  it  was  not  e/Hcacious  to  prevent 
^he  entrance  of  fin  into  the  world,  how  can  we  know,  that 


vTlm,  IL  4.  conjldered. 


■21"* 


it  win  be  cfUcricious  to  extirpate  it  out  of  the  vvorld,  or 
from  among  the  human  race  ?  If  Gcd  was  not  in  any  pro- 
per fenfe  wiUing  that  (in  and  raifery  ihould  enter  and  pre- 
dominats  in  the  world  ;  then  it  feeras,  that  infinite  power 
and  wifdom  were  in  this  infcance  baffled.  And  if  thefe 
divine  perfections  have  been  baffled  once^  they  may  be 
baffled  a  fecond  time,  and  notwithltandinp-  all  their  at- 
tempts^  (m  and  mifery  may  continue  without  end,  in  fome 
of  tiie  hun-ianrace.  If  on  the  other  hand,  although  God 
commanded  and  in  a  proper  fenfe  v/illed,  that  man  fl-iould 
Itand  ;  fiill  in  another  fenfe  he  confented,  or  v/illed,  that 
he  lliould  fall :  in  the  fame  fenfe  God  may  confcnt,  that 
fome  men  fhail  be  the  fubjec^s  of  fm  and  mifery  to  an  end- 
:fs  duration. 
Dr..  C.  *^  readilv  owns,  that  men,  as  free  anrents,  have 
^he  power  of  rejijr'ing  and  oppojing  thofe  means,  v/hich 
)d  from  his  delire  f  f  their  falvation,  may  fee  fit  to  nfe 
witi^them."*  '^  Yet  it  appears"  th  him  *'  a  grofs  re- 
iBeclimt  on  that  being,  who  is  infinitely  perfeft,  to  fup- 
^fe  hjtn  unable  finally  to  crjimteraci,  and  in  a  moral 
Vv'ayirbo,  the  weaknefs,  folly  and  obfl:inacy  of  fuch  poor 
inferior  creatures,  as  men  are.f "  How  thefe  twopro- 
pofitions,  which  in  the  Doctor's  book  occur  within  a  page, 
can  be  reconciled  with  each  other  ;  how  man  can  liave  a 
povv'er  to  refill  all  the  means  which  God  ufes  to  effect  his 
falvation,  and  at  the  fame  time  God  can  have  a  pov.er  to 
counteracl,  in  a  moral  v/ay,  this  obflinate  reiiftance  of  man, 
mufl  certainly  be  fet  down  among  the  things  hard  to  bs 
under  flood  in  Dr.  C. 

But  perhaps  ths  \\ox(\  finally  in  the  fecond  quotation  is 
cmphatical,  and  Dr.  Cs  meaning  is,  that  though  the  povv'- 
er  of  refifling  in  man  cannot  confiilently  with  free  agency 
be  counteracted  even  by  God,  at  once^  or  in  2.fi?ort  thne  ; 
yet  it  may  be  counteracted  in  a  very  long  time.  This  how- 
ever  will  not  agree  with  Dr.  C's  own  language,  fie  fays, 4: 
*^  The  power  in  men  of  reiifting  the  means,  vrhich  Gcd 
'^  from  delire  of  their  falvation  fees  fit  to  ufe  with  them, 
'^  ought  not  to  be  overruled,  nor  indeed  can  be  in  coniif- 
'^  tence  with  moral  agency."  Now  to  counteract  or  over- 
rule in  a  long  timxe  this  power  of  refifting,  is  as  really  to 
overrule  it,  as  to  overrule  it  in  a  fhort  time.  But  accord- 
ing to  JDr.  C.  it  cannot  be  overruled  in  confiitency  with 

moral 

f  P.  166.    t  P.  167.    iP.  166. 


214  Bi''   C*s  argwmnt  from 

moral  agency.  It  feems  then,  that  if  the  damned  iliall  be 
finally  brought  to  repentinice  by  God  counterafting  their 
obilinacy,  they  are  llripped  of  their  moral  agency. 

O 'I  if  it  be  pleaded,  that  this  connteracling  is  not  an 
«'^c'/^.v^/ overruling  ;  but  fucli  an  influence  of  means  and 
motives,  as  isconiiilent  with  moral  agency  :  flill  this  gives 
no  fatisfaction.  Is  it  fuch  a  counteracting,  as  will  certnh?- 
ly  and  **  InfalUhly^^  be  foliov/ed  by  the  repentance  and  fal- 
vition  of  the  linner  ?  This  is  holden  by  IJr.  C.§  If  this 
be  fo,  v/hat  moral  power  of  ftill  refirting  has  the  linner  at 
the  time  of  his  repentance?  And  if  he  have  at  that  time 
no  moral  power  of  further  refiftance,  then  this  power  is 
overruled  effeclnally^  and  of  courfe,  according  to  Dr.  C's 
fcheme,  the  finner  is  deprived  of  his  moral  agency. 

If  on  the  other  hand  it  be  faid,  that  the  counteracting 
be  not  fuch  as  v/ill  certainly  and  ^'  infallibly"  be  followed 
by  the  repentance  of  the  fmner ;  then  there  is  no  certainty 
that  the  linner  will  ever  under  the  moft  powerful  means 
which  God  fliall  ufe  with  him,  be  brought  to  repentance 
and  be  faved.  Thus  the  certainty  of  univerfal  iklvation 
at  once  comes  to  nothing.  There  is  no  certainty,  no 
ground  of  alTurance,  that  all  will  be  faved  ;  and  all  the 
truth  is,  that  God  will  ufe  means  with  fmners  hereafter, 
as  he  does  in  this  Itate^  to  prepare  them  for  falvation  ;  but 
as  in  this  flate,  fo  in  the  future,  fmners  may,  or  may  not, 
comply  with  thofe  means. 

To  Dr.  C.  ''  it  appeared  a  grofs  refledion  on  that  be- 
'*  ing  who  is  infinitely -perfect,  to  fuppofe  him  unable  /?- 
*'  nally  to  counteracl,  and  in  a  moral  way  too,  the  obfti- 
nacy  of  men."*  But  is  it  no  reflection  on  God,  to  fuppofe 
him  not  to  have  been  able  in  a  moral  way,  to  prevent  the 
entrance  of  fin  into  the  world  ?  Is  it  no  reflection  on  him 
to  fuppofe,  that  he  is  not  able  in  a  moral  way  to  counterad 
the  ooillnacy  of  men  in  this  life  >  Is  it  no  reflection  to 
fuppofe,  that  he  is  not  able,  by  the  powerful  means  ufed 
in  hell,  to  counterad  it,  in  a  fmgle  infbance,  for  the  fpace 
of  a  thoufand  years  ?f  How  long  muil:  God  be  unable  to 
counteract  human  obftinacy,  before  the  imputation  of  luch 
inability  becomes  a  reflection  on  him  ?  How  long  may  he 
confiitently  with  his  perfections  be  unable  to  counteracl 
that  obilinacy  ?  and  what  duration  of  that  inability  maybe 
imputed  to  him,  without   a  reflection   on  him,  and  what 

duration 

5  P.  167.     *  P.    167.     -^  See  p.  402;  403. 


I  Tim,  IJ.  4,  conjidere^,  ii^j 

iluration  of  it  cannot  be  imputed  to  him  without  a  reflec- 
tion ?  If  it  be  no  reflection  on  God,  to  fay,  that  he  is 
unable  to  counteraj^  that  obftinacy  within  a  thoufand  years; 
is  it  a  reflection  to  fay,  that  he  is  unable  to  counteract  it  in 
two  thoufand,  in  ten  thoufand,  or  in  an  hundred  thoufand 
years  >  If  not,  why  does  it  become  a  reflection  to  fay, 
that  he  is  \m2AAe  finally  to  counteract  it  ? Let  any  be- 
liever in  Dr.   C's  fcheme  anfwer  thefe  quefliions. 

Doctor  C's  reafoning  in  the  following;  palTage,  is 
worthy  of  notice  ;  X  **  ^^  ^^^  defires  the  falvation  of  all, 
*^  and  Chriir  died  that  this  defire  of  God  might  be 
'^  complied  with,   is  it    credible   that    a    fmall  portion  of 

'*  men  only  Ihould   be    faved    in  event  ?" This  rea-- 

foning  may  be  retorted  thus  :  If  God  defires  that 
all  men  be  faved  immediately  after  this  hfe,  and  Chrill 
died  that  this  defire  might  be  complied  with ;  is  it  credible, 
that  a  fmall  portion  of  men  only  flaould  be  then  faved  ? 

The  advocates  for  univerfal  falvation,  one  and  all, 
bring  in  the  text  now  under  confideration,  **'  Who  will 
*'  have  all  men  to  be  faved,"  as  a  proof  of  their  doctrine. 
Therefore  I  wilh  to  alk  them,  from  v.hat  they  belie v^e  all 
men  are,  according  to  thefe  words,  to  be  faved  ?  From 
an  endlefs  punifliment  ?  Then  they  were  by  a  divine  con- 
ftitution  expofed  to  an  endlefs  punifhm.ent ;  then  an  endlefs 
punilhment  isjufl:;  then  fin  deferves  an  endlefs  punifli- 
ment ;  then  fin  is  an  infinite  evil  ;  which  to  them  is  an  in- 
finitely horrible  doctrine.  Butletthem,  if  they  can,  avoid 
it,  once  allowing  that  allmenaretobe  faved  from  an  endlefs 
punifirment.  Or  are  all  men,  according  to  thefe  words,  to  be 
faved  from  a  temporary  punifliment  ?  What  temporary 
puniihmem  ?  Not  that  which  is  to  continue  for  ages  of  ages  : 
fome  will  fuiFer  that.  Not  from  a  longer  temporary  pu- 
nifhment  ;  becaufe  none  fuch  is  threatened  ;  and  finners 
are  not  .expofed  to  a  punifbment  greater  than  that  which 
is  threatened  in  the  divine  law. On  the  whole,  accord- 
ing to  univerfaiifm,  thefe  words  mean,  that  all  men  fhall  be 
faved  indeed,  but  ihall  be  faved  from Nothing. 

CHAP. 
$  P.   i68. 


<< 


jiz6  Dr.  C's  argument  fror/i 


CHAP.     XII. 

Do^or  Cs  arguments  from  PfaL  VIII.  5,  6.  Heh.  II, 
6 — 9.  PhiL  II.  9,  10,  II.  I  Cor.  XV.  24; — 29. 
and  Rev.   V.    13;   conjidcrsd, 

TIS    argument  from^Pfal.   VIII.   5,  6,  and  Heb.   IT, 
6 — '9,  is  biiik  on  thofc  v/ords,  **  Thou  hall  put  all 

things  under  his  feet."  lie  was  of  the  opinion,  that 
thofe  words  mean,  by  the  univerfahty  of  the  terms,  that 
tven  fin  itfelfihall  be  fubjcded  to  Chrift  ;  and  that  fni  can- 
not be  fubjecled  to  Chrifl  in  any  other  way,  than  by  the  de- 
flrutrrion  of  it.*  But  this  is  to  fuppole  what  is  by  no  means 
granted,  and  ought  not  to  have  been  alTerted  without 
proof.  An  enemy  may  be  overpowered,  taken,  im.prifon- 
ed,  and  put  entirely  under  the  power,  or  under  the  feet 
of  the  conqueror  ;  and  yee  not  be  put  to  death  or  annihila- 
ted. Vv'^hen  it  is  faid  Chriit's  enemies  JJmll  be  made  his 
foot/tool^  Pfal.  ex.  I,  Heb.  X.  1.3  ;  No  one  will  pretend, 
that  this  means  either  a  cordial  fubmiiTion  to  Chrifl,  oran- 
.nihilation.  When  the  captains  of  Ifrael  put  their  feet  on 
the  necks  of  the  C.maanitifh  kings,  Jofh.  X.  24,  as  this 
was  no  token  of  cordial  fubmiflion  or  reconciliation ;  fo  it 
is  certain,  that  thofe  kings  were  not  then  annihilated. 
The  fame  idea  is  naturally  fuggefled  by  that  expreflion^ 
Put  under  his  feet.  Not  any  of  thefe  phrafes  is  allowed 
to  be  ufed  in  fcripture^  to  exprefs  either  a  cordial  fubmif- 
iion,  or  annihilation.  Sin  is  fuch  an  enemy,  as  never  can 
in  its  nature  be  reduced  to  a  cordial  fubmilhon  to  Chrifl., 
Nor  needs  it  to  be  annihilated,  to  anfwer  the  exprellion  of 
being  put  under  the  feet  of  Chritt :  Nor  indeed  does  that 
expreiiion  naturally  fuggcflthe  idea  of  annihilation  ;  but  na- 
turally, if  not  necelTarUy  implies  the  contrary.  An  enemy 
may  be  under  the  feet  of  his  conqueror  before  he  is  anni- 
hilated, but  after  he  is  annihilated,  he'  is  neither  under 
his  feet,  nor  in  any  other  place.  To  be  under  the  feet  there- 
fore implies  exiflence  :  and  fm  may  properly  be  faid  to  be 
put  under  the  feet  of  Chrill,  when  it  is  fo  retrained  and 
exemplarily  puniilied,  that  on  the  w^hole  no  diihonour  is 
done  by4t  to  Chrill,  or  to  the  Deity  ;  no  evil  refults  irom 

it 

*  P.  179. 


Pf.  VIII.  5,  6,  and  Heb,  IL  6—9,  confidered       %if 

it  to  the  univerfe,  or  td  any  of  Chrift's  real  followers : 
but  on  the  other  hand  it  is  made,  contrary  to  its  own  teh- 
tlency,  the  instrument  of  promoting  the  glory  of  God  and 
of  the  Saviour,  and  of  increafing  the  happinefs  of  his  uni- 
Verfal  kingdom,  and  of  all  his  true  fubjeftsi 

T)k.  C.  makes  a  diftinclion  between  God's  government 
of  power  and  his  moral  government;  by  which  it  is  fup-^ 
pofed,  that  he  meant  to  fhow,  that  fm  cannot  be  brought 
into  fubjedion  to  Chriil,  but  by  the  willing  fubmifTion  of 
the  fmner.  ^^  *Men  by  fmning  oppofe  the  government 
*'  of  God;  not  his  government  of /oiufr ;  for  this  ever 
'^  was,  and  ever  will,  and  ever  muft  be,  fubmittcd  to  ; 
*'  but  his  moral  o-overnment  which  he  exercifes  over  intel- 
*^  li<»ent  and  free  agents.  Here  is  room  for  oppofition. 
'^  Men  may  refift  that  will  of  God,  which  requires  their* 
**  obedience/'  &c.  It  may  be  prefumed,  that  the  paf- 
fage  now  quoted  was  entirely  out  of  the  Doctor's  mind, 
when  he  wrote  the  following  :  '^  'Tis  readily  acknowledg- 
*'  ed,  the  glory  of  Chrifl's />.i?w<fr,  as  head  of  the  govern- 
^'  ment  of  God,  \vi\\hs  2 1 luflriou fly  difplayed,  if  hy  fores 
"  only  he  finally  fubdues  ©bilinate  fmners.''  By  this  it  ap- 
pears, that  it  was  Dr.  C^s  opinion,  that  men  do  oppofe 
the  prnver  of  Chriil:,  and  the  power  Chrift  as  the  head  of 
the  government  of  God  too  ;  and  that  his  pov/er  may  be  il- 
luflrioudy  difplayed,  if  it  be  employed  to  fubdue  hy  force 
their  obflinate  oppofition.  But  to  fay,  that  power  and 
force  are  employed  to  fubdue  obftinate  oppofition,  and  yet 
that  this  oppofition  is  no  oppofition  to  that  power  and  force, 
is  as  abfurd,  as  to  fay,  that  a  prince  exerts  his  power  and 
force  to  fubdue  the  oppofition  of  an  army  of  rebels,  and 
yet  thatthofe  rebels  do  not  at  all  oppofe  his  power  ;  or  it 
is  as  abfurd  as  to  fay,  that  oppofition  can  be  fubdued  Vv  here 
there  is  no  oppofition. 

It  .is  by  no  means  clear  what  Dr.  C.  meant  by  God's 
government  o^ power,  as  oppofed  to  his  moral  government. 
Can  there  be  any  government  without  power  ?  It  is  plain 
by  the  laft  quotation,  that  Dr.  C.  did  not  imagine,  that 
God's  m.oral  government  is  without  eixh^T po^uer  or  force^ 
and  that  both  power  and  force  may  be  employed  to  fub- 
due linners,  who  asfinnersare  fubjects  of  God's  moral  go- 
vernment only. But  let  the  Doftor  have  meant  by  this 

diftinclion  what  he  will,  it  is  by  no  means  true,  that  fin- 

F  f  ners 

*  P.  179.      ■ 


^i§  DoSior   Cs  argumsni  frorri 

ners  are  always  fo  far  reftrained  and  fubjecled  by  Gocl^i 
moral  government,  that  in  the  pre  fen  t  ftate  of  things,  and 
if  all  things  were  to  remain  as  they  now  are,  no  difhonour 
would  be  done  to  God,  no  injury  to  his  kingdom,  to  his 
chofcn  people,  or  to  the  inteiledlual  fyftem.  There  is 
room  therefore  for  fm  and  finners,  in  this  fenfc,  to  be  fub- 
jecled and  reiirained  by  the  government  of  God.  When 
^^  the  wrath  of  men  Ihall  praife  God,  and  the  remainder 
*'  of  v/rath  fliall  be  retrained, ^'  then  will  fmners  be 
brought  to  that  fubjection  to  Chrifc,  of  which  I  am  fpeak- 
incr.  But  Dr,  C.  would  not  pretend,  that  in  this  fenfe, 
finners  ever  have  been,  ever\\\i\  be,  and  ever  mi(fr  be  fubject 

to  God. In  one  v/ord,  to  be  fubjecled  to  Chrifl  is  to  be 

made  either  actively  or  pafTively  fubfervient  to  his  purpofe* 
and  to  his  glory. 

When  the  enemies  of  a  prince  are  overcome,  and  in 
chains  and  prilons  are  retrained  from  interrupting  the 
peace  and  happinefs  of  his  faithful  fubjefts  ;  then  they  .arc 
put  under  his  feet  and  are  fubjecled  to  him,  and  all  their 
*^  rule,  authority  and  power,  are  put  down  or  aboliflied." 
So  when  all  the  enemies  of  Chrifl:,  all  *^  obftinate  finners" 
Ihall  be,  to  ufe  H^r.  C's  own  words,  ^'  by  force  finally  fub- 
*^  dued,*'  /but  up  in  prifon,  bound  with  chains,  and  pre- 
vented from  doing  the  leaft  mifchief  to  the  difciples  and 
kingdom  of  Chriil ;  then  thofe  enemies  will  be  put  under 
the  feet  of  Chnii  ;  then  *^  an  end  will  be  put  to  the  do- 
^'  minion  of  fm  ;^''  then  the  works  of  the  devil  \v\\\  be  de- 
ftroyed  ;  then  the  ferpents  head  will  be  bruifed,  and  tho 
devil's  kingdom  will  be  overthrown,  as  really  and  effe^lu- 
ally,  as  the  power  of  a  rebel  can  be  overthrown  by  an  en- 
tire conquefl  of  him  and  his  adherents,  by  his  perpetual 
inaprifonment  and  other  proper  punifliment  according  to 
the  laws  of  the  kingdom,  though  he  and  fome  of  his  parti- 
zans  be  permitted  to  live,  and  though  they  retain  a  rebel- 
lious fpirit.— — The  verb  LTro^Ta^)  in  Rom.  VIII.  20,  fig- 
nifies,  as  Dr.  C.  holds,  an  involuntary  fubjeclion.  It  may 
therefore  mean  the  fame  in  Heb.  II.  8,  and  i  Cor.  XV. 
27,  &c. 

Doctor.  C.  infifls  on  the  words  in  i  John,  III.  8, 
*'  For  this  purpofe  was  the  Son  of  God  manifefted,  that 
^'  he  might  dellrcy  the  works  of  the  devil.''  By  the  works 
of  the  devil,  he  underftands  all  (in  :  by  deftroying  he  un- 
derflandsan  entire  abolition.     On  the  other  hand;   by  de- 

ftroying 


TfaL  VIII.  5,  6,  andHeh,  IL  6—9,  confidered,       219 

ilroying  the  works  of  the  devil,  fome  underftand  a  perfed 
defeat  of  every  attempt  in  oppofition  to  the  pccice,  happi- 
nefs  and  glory  of  God's  kingdom  :  ^^  The  devil  will  be 
'^  moft  effectually  fubdued,  his  works  will  be  deftroyed  and 
'^  his  head  bruifcd  in  the  liighelt  fcnfe  and  degree,  when 
'*  he  fliail  be  perfectly  defeated  ajad  difappoijited  in  all  his 
^'  defigns,  and  every  thing  he  has  attempted  againft  Chrift 
^'  and  his  intereft,  liiall  be  turned  againil  himfelf,  to  anfwer 
''  thole  ends  which  he  conflandy  fought  to  defeat  by  all 
^'  his  attempts ;  and  Chrift  (hail  be  more  honoured,  and 
'^  his  kingdom  more  happy  and  glorious  forever,  than  it 
^'  could  have  been,   if  Satan  had  never  oppofed    him,   or 

*^  ibduccd    and  deftroyed  any  of  mankind. ^^"^ As  th3 

text  now  under  confideration  is  capable  cf  the  fenfe  juft 
given ;  until  it  fliall  be  proved,  that  the  Dcclcr's  is  the 
true  fenfe,  it  proves  nothing  to  his  purpofe. 

Doctor  C.  grants, f  I'hat  by  deftrudion  the  fcrip- 
tures  mean  the  mifery  and  puniihment  of  finners.  There* 
fore  Tinners  are  in  the  fenfe  and  languap-^  of  fcrinture  de- 
uroyed,  when  they  are  fent  to  the  place  of  reftraint,  im- 
prifonment  and  mifery  prepared  for  them.  And  as  fniners 
will  be  deftroyed  \yithout  anmhilationy  fo  may  Jin  and  the 
works  of  the  devil. 

That  God  has  always  pov/er  to  fubdue  or  to  fubject  to 
himfelf  his  enemies,  is  one  thing:  aftuaily  to  fubjedl  them, 
by  reftraining  them  from  doing  any  damage  to  his  king- 
dom or  his  fubjeds,  is  another.  In  the  prefent  ftate,  the 
enemies  of  Chrift  tempt  his  fubjeds,  obftrud  his  caufe, 
and  do  many  things,  which  if  they  were  to  remain  as  they 
now  are,  ^vould  b^  an  everlaftinp-  diflionour  to  Chrift.  But 
they  Ihall  be  made  his  footftool,  they  fnall  no  more  do  any 
ef  thofe  things. 

Whe-n  Chrift  puts  his  enemies  under  his  feet,  he  treads 
them  down  in  his  anger  and  tramples  them  in  his  fury,  a- 
greeably  to  Ifai.  LXIII.  3.  But  this  furely  is  not  to  bring 
them  to  a  cordial  reconciliation. 

Therefore,  as  Pfal.  VIII.  5,  6;  Heb.  II.  6 — 9,  are 
fairly  capable  of  a  conftrudion  entirely  dilferent  from  that 
on  which  Dr.  C's  whole  argument  from  them  depends  ; 
they  prove  nothing  to  his  purpofe  :  efpecialiy  as  they  are 
»ot  naturally  caoable  of  his  conPa-uclion, 

*  Hopkins^ s  Inquiry  inie  the  Future  State* 
t  P-  224. 


1^ 


^20  Do^or  C-s  argur.ienl  fram 


We  are  now  to  attend  to  Phil.  II.  9,  ic,  11 ;  <^  Where-. 
<'  fore  God  aljo  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a 
^*  name  v/hich  is  above  every  name  :  that  at  the  name  of 
*'  Jefus  every  knee  fliould  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and 
*'  things  in  eai-th,  and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and  that 
^^  every  tongue  Ihould  confefs,    that  Jefus  Chriil  is  Lord, 

*^  to  the    glory   of  God  the   Father.''^ The   queftion 

concerning  this  text  is  the  fame  as  that  concerning  the 
text  lafc  under  confideration  ;  What  are  we  to  underitand 
by  that  fubjection,  to  which  Chrllt  in  confequencs  of  his 
exaltation,  was  to  reduce  mr.nkind  ?  Is  it  a  free  and  vo- 
luntary fubjection  in  all  men  ?  Or  in  fome  men  a  fubjec- 
tion  to  which  they  fliall  be  reduced  by  the  power  and  au- 
thority of  Chrin,  in  cppQiition  to  their  own  inchnations  ? 
Dr.  C.  afferts  that  the  former  is  the  i-noft  plain  and  na- 
tural fenfe,  and  that  the  latter  is  evidently  too  low  and  re^ 
drained  an  interpretation.     But  politive  aflertions   prove 


no  tiling. 


As  to  the  Doctor^s  reo.fons  to  prove  that  the  fubjeclioii 
in  queftion  is  a  free  and  voluntary  one,  they  are  as  fol- 
lows ;  That  Chriit  is  now  endeavouring  to  reduce  man- 
kind to  a  voluntary  fubjection  to  himieli* That  though 

Chriil;  do  not  in  this  ftate,  prevail  on  all  men  voluntarity  to 
fubjecl:  themfelves  to  him,  y«t  he  may  prevail  on  them  inr 

the  next  ftate. f That    if  Chrifc  was  exalted   for    this 

end,  that  every  knee  fhould  bow  to  him,  &:c.  he  will  fail 
of  his  end  uniefs  all  men  be  reduced  to  a  voluntary  fub— 
jectionj- — r— That  the  genuflection  in  this  Phil.  II,  10,  evi- 
dently means  a  voluntary  ad  Ij- That  a'  compelled  fub- 
jection is  a  poor,  low  kind  of  fubjedion  in  comparifon  with 
that  which  is  voluntary  ;  therefore  the  reward  of  Chrift's 
humiliation,  uniefs  it  imply  an  univerfal  voluntary  fubjedion 
of  mankind,  is  low  and  fmall  in  coitipariijon  with  what  it 
would  have  been,   had  it  implied  a  voluntary  fubjedion.||!| 

I.  Chriit  is  now  endeavouring  to  bring  all  men  to  a  vo- 
luntary fubjedion  to  himfelf;  and  thefe  endeavours  will 
fooncr  or    later  be  fuccefsful  :    therefore    Phil.  II.  9,  &c. 

means  a  voluntary  fubjedion. Anfwer  :    Chriit  is  now 

in  no  other  fenfe  endeavouring  to  bring  all  to  a  voluntary 
lubjedion,  than  in  the  days  of  his  incarnation  he  endea- 
voured to  gather  the  inhabitants  of  Jerufalem  together,  as; 
7H.  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings  ;  or  than  he 

always 

:?  p.  190.  t  p.  191.  ±  P".  192.   !|  Ibid.   |j!|  p.  192,  if>3, 


Phil.  II.  9 — 12,  conjidered.  12f 

always  has  endeavoured  to  prevent  the  death  of  him  that 
tiieth.  But  as  thole  endeavours  have  not  been  efficacious  ; 
lb  his  endeavours  to  bring  all  men  to  a  voluntary  fubjec- 
tion,  may  not  be.  Therefore  this  argument  proves  no- 
thing. 

2.  Though  Chrift  do  not  in  this  ftate  prevail  on  all  men 
voluntarily  to  fubjecl  themfelves  to  him  ;  yet  he  may  pre- 
vail on  them  in  the  next  (late  :  therefore  in  the  next  ftate 
all  will  infaclhe  brought  to  a  voluntary  fubjeciion  :  there- 
fore Phil.  II.   9,  &c.  means  voluntary  fubjection. An- 

fwer  :  It  does  not  follow  from  the  power  of  Chnil  to  re- 
duce all  men  to  a  voluntary  fubjeclion,  that  he  wlUinfacf, 
reduce  them  to  thatfuhjeclion. 

3.  If  Chrift  were  exalted  for  this  end,  that  every  knee 
fliould  bow  to  him,  &:c.  he  will  fail  of  the  end  of  his  ex- 
altation, unlefs  all  be  reduced  to   a  voluntary  fubjection. 

Anfwer  :   The  confequenccby  no  means  follows  from 

the  antecedent.  For  though  it  be  allowed  that  Chrift  nas 
exalted  for  the  end,  that  every  knee  lliould  bow  to  him  ; 
yet  it  is  not  allowed  that  this  bouing  of  the  knee  is  a  vo- 
luntary fubjection.  So  that  Chrift  may  obtain  the  whole 
end  of  his  exaltation,  without  efPecling  a  voluntary  fubjec- 
tion of  ail  men.  This  argument  takes  for  granted,  that 
the  bowing  of  the  knee  mentioned  in  Phil.  II.  10^  is  a 
voluntary  fubmidion. 

4.  Tlie  genuflection  in  Phil.   IT.    10,   evidently  means  a 

voluntary  acl. Anfwer  :    It  does  not  evidently   mean  a 

voluntary  a6l.-— A  mere  contradidtion  is  a  fuihcient  anfv/cr 
to  a  mere  alTertion. 

5.  A'compelled  fubjeclion  is  a  poor,  lov/  kind  of  fub- 
jection in  comparifon  with  that  which  is  voluntary.  I'here- 
fore  the  rey/ard  of  Chrift's  humihation,  unlefs  it  imply  a 
voluntary  fubjection  of  all  mankind,  is  lov/  and  fm.ail  in 
comparifon  with  what  it  v/ould  have  been,  had  it  implied 
a  voluntary  fubjeclion.  Therefore  it  does  imply  a  volun- 
tary fubjection  ;  therefore  a  voluntary  fubjection  is  intend- 
ed in  Phil.  II.    10.  ^     ^ 

Answer  :  We  are  very  improper  perfons  to  determine 
a  priori  what  is  the  proper  reward  of  Chrift,  or  v/hat  re- 
ward is  the  greateft,  and  moft  honourable  to  Chrift.  Some 
may  imagine  it  would  be  moft  honourable  tO' Chrift,  to  re- 
duce all  men  to  a  voluntary  fubmillion  in  this  life  ;  as  m 
yxn  cale  they  v/ould  be  faved  from  all  future  punifhrnent  ; 

and 


'ilK  Do^or  Cs  argument  from 

nnd  thus  might  the  grace,  power  and  wifdom  of  Chrifi 
in  theh' opinion  be  more  glorified.  Hence  they  might  ar- 
gue juft  as  forcibly  as  Dr.  C.  does  in  the  other  cafe,  That 
undoubtedly  Ghrift  will  in  this  life  reduce  all  men  to  a  vo» 
iuntary  fubjeclion  to  himfelf>  On  the  fame  principle  it 
might  alfo  have  been  proved,  before  the  fact  Ihewed  the 
contrary,  that  ail  men  would  be  reduced  to  a  voluntary  fub- 
jedlion  to  Chriit,  in  a  veiy  fhort  time,  long  before  the 
time  of  their  ordinary  departure  out  of  life.  On  the  fame 
principle  too  it  might  hav6  been  proved,  that  God  would 

never  permit  fm  and  mifery  to  enter  the  Vvorld, Thus 

it  appears,  that  Dr.  C's  argument,  if  it  prove  any  thin^, 
proves  too  much,  therefore  proves  nothing. 

The  Do6lor  was  not  infeniible,  that  the  fame  words 
are  quoted  by  the  Apoftle  Paul,  and  applied  to  the  general 
judgment  ;  at  which  time  Dr.  C.  does  not  pretend,  that 
all  men  will  be  voluntarily  fubjcd  to  Chrifl.*  See  Rom. 
XIV.   lo,   II,   12.    ^'  Fer  we  fliall   all   ftand  before  the 

judgment  feat   of  Chriit.     For  it  is  written,  as  I  live, 

faith  the  Lord,  every  knee  fhall  bov/  to  me,  and  every 
**  tongue  ihall  confefs  to  God.  So  then  every  one  of  us 
*^  Ihall  give  account  of  himfelf  to  God."  Therefore  we 
have  clear  evidence,  that  thefe  words  do  fometimes  mean 
that  fubjedion  which  is  not  voluntary.  And  that  in  Phil. 
II.  ID,  they  mean  a  voluntary  fubjeftion  and  that  only, 
we  mufl  have  good  evidence,  before  vv^e  are  obliged  to  be- 
lieve it.  The  utmoft  evidence  which  Dr.  C.  gives  us,  re- 
specting that  matter,  I  have  exhibited  above  ;  and  con- 
cerning the  fuiliciency  of  it,  the  reader  wiil  judge. 

Doctor  C.  acknowledges, f  that  the  words  are  perti- 
nently applied  by  the  Apoftle,  to  that  fubjedion  which  Ihall 
take  place  as  to  all,  at  the  general  judgment :  but  fays  that 
his  thus  applying  them  is  no  argument  that  they  mean  no- 
thing more.  To  which  it  may  be  anfwered,  that  it  is  an 
argument  that  they  mean  nothing  more  in  Phil.  II.  lo, 
unlefs  good  reafon  can  be  given  to  Ihow,  that  in  this  paf-^ 
fage  they  do  mean  more  :  and  whether  the  reafons  which 
Dr.  C.  gives,  be  good  and  fatrsfactory,  is  fubmitted  as 
before. 

We  come  at  length  to  the  confideration  of  that  pafTage 
of  fcripture,  which  Dr.  C.  ^^  coniiders  as  dicUive  of  itfelfy 
*'  were  there  no   other   text   in  the  Bible  of  the  like  im- 

''  port/' 

f  P.    196.   t  Ibid^ 


<  ^or.  XV.  S4 — 2^,  confukred,  22 '> 

"  port.'*  it  is  I  Cor.  XV.  24—29  ;  <<  Then  cometh  the 
*'  end,  when  he  ihall  have  delivered  up  'the  kingdom  to 
'^  God,  even  the  father ;  when  he  fiiall  have  put  dowa 
''  all  rule,  and  all  authority  and  power. '  For  he  mud 
•'  reign,  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet.  The 
*'  laft  enemy  that  fliail  be  deftroyed  is  death.  For  he  hath 
'^  put  all  things  under  his  feet.  But  when  he  faith  all 
''*  thing.?  are  put  under  him,  it  is  manifeft,  that  he  is  ex- 
*'  cepted  which  did  put  all  things  under  him.  And  when 
*'  all  things  ihall  be  fuhdued  unto  him,  then  fhall  the  foa 
'*  alfo  himfelf  be  iubjedt  unto  him,  that  put  all  things  un- 
'^  derhim,   that  God  maybe  all  in  ail." 

The  Doclor  prefaces  his  cricicifm    on  this  text,  with 
fome  obfervations  on  the  previous  context,  which  demand 

our  firfl  attention. He  quotes  the  21ft  and  22d  vcrfes  ; 

*'  For  fince  by  man  came  death,  by  man  came  alio  the  re- 
*'  furredion  of  the  dead.  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even 
'*  fo  in  Clirifl  fhall  all  be  made  alive  :"  and  adds,  "  It  is 
'^  with  me  beyond  all  controverfy  evident,  that  the  apof- 
'^  tic  is  fpeakmg  here,  not  of  a  partial,  but  univerfal  re- 
*^  furrection,  not  of  the  refurreclion  of  the  righteous  on- 

*'  ly,  but  of  the  whole  race    of  Adam. The  fam.e  all 

*'  who  fufFer  death  through  Adam,  fhall  through  Chrift 
''  be  made  alive.  The  compariion  between  the  damage 
'^  by  Adam  and  the  advantage  by  Chriit,  lies  in  this  very 
'^  thing.*''  Here  we  have  the  Doctor's  opinion,  and  his 
reafon  for  it.  His  opinion  is,  that  in  the  -22d  verfe  the  a- 
poflle  is  fpeaking  of  all  mankind  :  his  reafon  for  this  opi- 
nion is,  that  otherwife  there  would  be  no  proper  compari- 
fon  of  Ad^m  and  Chrifl,  But  the  truth  of  this  obfervati- 
on  is  by  no  means  conceded.  The  reader  may  have  fcen 
my  ideas  of  tljis  cafe  in  the  remarks  made  above,  on  Rom. 

V.  12,  .&:c. If  an  army  under  one  general  be  all  killed 

or  taken,  and  afterwards  the  furviving  part  of  the  fame 
army,  nov/  liberated,  and  under  the  command  of  another 
general,  return  every  one  in  fafety  from  a  dangerous  bat- 
tle ;  it  may  be  juftly  faid.  As  under  the  former  general 
all  the  army  was  killed  or  taken,  fo  under  the  latter  ge- 
neral all  the  army  returned  from  the  battle  in  fafety.  There 
would  in  this  cafe  be  a  true  and  proper  comparifon.  \  et 
the  very  fame  all  would  not  be  intended  in  both  parts  of 
ihe  com.parifon.     Dr.  C's  reafon  therefore  is  not  fufficient 

to 

■^    p.  201. 


2^4  Do^or  Cs  aj-gumitit  from 

tofupporthis  conflruction.  There  is  a  proper  comparifois 
of  Adam  and  Chrifr,  if  the  apoltle  fay,  and  intended  to 
lay,  As  in  Adam  all  his  {qqiX  die,  even  fo  in  Chrift  all  his 
feed  ihall  be  made  alive. 

It  is  indeed  a  truth  granted  on  all  hands,  that  all  man- 
kind will  be  raifed  at  the  lail  day  ;  but  it  dees  net  hence 
follovv',  that  the  apoftle  in  this  verfe  is  fpeaking  of  fuch 
an  univerial  refurreclion. 

Beside,  if  itfliouldbe  granted,  that  the  22d  verfe  re- 
fers to  the  refurrection  of  all  men,  it  would  not  follow, 
that  all  will  be  faved.  For  Dr.  C.  grants,  that  had  the 
apoille  *^  nowhere  ^\(e  opened  his  mind  more  fully  and 
**  particularly  upon  this  matter,  the  utmoft  we  could  have 
**  argued  from  his  words,  would  have  been,  that  as  all 
'^  men  die  in  Adam,  fo  in  Chrift  they  fliould  all  be  deli- 
ic  vered  from,  this  death,  by  a  refurrection  to  life.f  * 
How  then  does  this  text  prove  univerfal  falvation?  And 
eijpecially  how  is  this  verfe,  or  even  the  whole  pafTage  **  of 
'*  itfelf  decifiveV^  Although  Dr.  C.  in  page  197,  declares 
his  opinion,  that  this  palTage  is  *^  deciiive  of  itfelf,  was 
**  there  no  other  text  in  all  the  Bible  of  tlie  like  import-/^ 
yet  he  himfelf  in  page  207,  gives  it  up  as  decifive,  in  the 
fcllowino-  words  ;  '-  This  parenthefis,  comprehended  with- 
*^  in  the  24th  and  29th   verfes,  was  parpofely  interpofed 

'^  to  bring  us  to  a  paufe— and  give  us  opportunity 

*^   to  relied  upon — ^ — the  truths here  revealed  ;  pur- 

*^  fuing  them  in  their  jull  tendency,  neceffary  conneclion 
'*  and  final  refult  :  In  the  doing  of  which,  we  fnould  v'lr-^ 
'^  tiially  continue  the    difcourfe,,    and    finifii    it  with  re- 

''  fpecl:  to  the  wicked,   as   the  apoille  had  done v/ith 

'^  refpecl  to  the  righteous."  Thus  it  appears  by  the  au- 
thority of  Dr.  C.  that  this  portion  of  fcripture  does  not 
contain  any  thing  plain,  or  pofitive  concerning  the  falva- 
tion of  thofe  who  die  in  wickednefs  ;  but  to  inveftigatc 
that  which  to  him  vv'as  fo  important  and  favourite  a  doctrine, 
we  muit  virtually  continue  and  finifh  the  difcourfe  our- 
felves.  Hov\^  then  is  this  pafTage  decifive  of  itfelf?  ^Unlefs 
we  virtually  continue  and  finifh  the  difcourfe  ourfelves  w^ith 
refpeft  to  the  wicked,  as  the  apoftle  had  done  with  refpei^ 
to  the  righteous,  we  fhall  never,  even  in  Dr.  C's  opinion 
come  to  the  fame  conclufion  concerning  the  wicked,  to 
which  the  apoftle  came  concerning  the  righteous,  that 
they  fliail  be  faved.  TH£ 

f    P.    201. 


s  C^r,  XV,  1A — 29,  conJicUrecl  21 -^ 

■'  The  chief  thing,  which  Dr.  C.  endeavours  by  this  paf- 
fxige  to  prove^  with  a  final  view  to  the  eftablilhment  of  u- 
niverfal  falvation,  is,  that  the  mediatory  fcheme  will  not 
be  finilhed  at  the  fecond  cominp;  of  Chrift;  but  a  great 
deal  will  then  remain  to  be  done  before  the  plan  of  God, 
for  the  accomplifliment  of  which  the  mediatory  kingdom 
is  entrufted  to  the  fon,  fhall  be  com^lieted.*  By  the  ^*  fi- 
'•  niihing,''  ^-  the  completing,"  &c,  of  '*  the  mediatory 
^^  fcheme/'  the  mediatorial  kingdom,  &c,  Dr.  C.  muifc 
have  meant  the  finifhing  of  the  work  of  falvation^  or  of 
delivering  iinners  from  fin  and  miiery  :  otherwife  he  meant 
nothing  to  the  purpofe  of  proving  the  falvation  of  all  men. 
What  if  the  mediatorial  kingdom  be  not  finilhed  at  ChriiVs 
fecond  coming?  Yet  if  after  that  period,  Chriii.  will  never 
more  deliver  any  of  mankind  froni  lin  and  from  wrath  ; 
thofe  who  iliall  at  that  time  remain  in  iln,  and  under  the 
wrath  of  God,   will  never  be  faved. 

That  in  the  fenfe  now  explained,  the  mediatorial fchema 
will  not  be  finiflied  at  the  fecond  cominfr  of  Chriii,  is  in- 
deed  a  point  in  difpute,  and  the  Dottov^  proofs  of 
this  point  are  to  be  candidly  weighed.      They  are  thefe 

two -(i)  ThispalTage  of  fcripture  teaches,   that  an  uni- 

vei*fal  fubjection  to  Chrift  is  to  be  efFecl:ed  before  the  iinifli- 
ing-  of  the  mediatorv  fchem^e ;  but  this  univerial  fubievflion 
to  Chrift  is  not  effected  at  the  fecond  coming  of  Chriit. — 
(2)  The  reward  of  the  good  and  faithful  fubje^ts  of  Chriit: 
is  to  be  beitowed  on  them  in  the  kino-dom  of  Chriit,  and 
therefore  Ciirift's  kingdom  will  not  be  at  an  end,  till  after 
they  fhall  have  enjoyed  that  reward  for  foms  time  at  lealt. 

1  thirjc  thefe  two  are  all  the  reafons  which  Dr.  C.  has 

given  to  fupport  the  propolition  in  queftion.  He  has  in- 
deed divided  his  long  and  complicated  difcourfe  on  the  text 
now  before  us*  into  five  heads  :  but  for  v/hat  reafon  is  not 
manifeft. 

I.  It  was  the  opinion  of  Dr.  C.  that  i  Cor.  XV.  24-20, 
teaches  us,  that  an  univerfal  fubjection  to  Chriit  is  to  be 
effected  before    the    finiihinf];  of   the  mediatorial  fcheme, 

which  is  not  effected  at  Chrift's  fecondcoming. dv  Iud- 

jeftion  to  Chriit  Dr.  C.  meant  with  refpect  to  intelligent 
creatures,  a  cordial,  willing  fubjection.  By  fubjection  to 
Chriit,  with  ref\iect  to  lin  and  death  the  hrfi  and  I'econd, 
he  feems  to  have  meant  aholk'nn.     But  though  it  h  agreed 

G  g  ''■I 

«  P.  ac8. 


226  DocJor  C^s  argument  from 

0:1  all  hands,  that  there  will  be  an  univerfal  fubjeftion  tcr 
Chrilt  eiteded;,  before  the  iinifhing  of  the  mediatorial 
icheme  ;  yet  it  is  not  agreed  that  this  fubjedion,  with  re- 
ference to  all  intcUigent  creatures,  will  be  3.  willing  fub- 
jeclion  or  iubiniirion.  Concerning  this  particular;, fome  ob- 
fervations  have  been  made  in  the  former  part  of  this  chap- 
ter. That  the  text  n3\v  under  coniideration  does  teach  a 
willing  fiibjeclion,  muil  be  fliown,  or  the  text  will  not  ap- 
pear to  be  to  the  purpofe. — — Now  to  fliow,  that  all  intel- 
ligent creatures  w  ill  be  cordially  fubjecled  to  Chrilt,  and 
-will  be  faved,  the  Doctor  infills,  that  both  fm  and  the  fe- 
cond  death  will  be  deflroyed. 

I.  That  (in  will  be  dellroyed.  With  reference  to  thofe 
words,  ^'  he  mull  reign  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies  under  his 
feet'' — ^^Aii  thing-s  fhall  be  fubdued  unto  him'' — The  Doc- 

tor  a&s,  "  Is  fin  an  eneryjyV^ Suppoiing  it  is  an  enemy, 

what  follows?  Not  what  the  Dodor  alferts,  ^^  Then  it 
will  be  dfftroyedy^  meaning  abolilhed,  extirpated  by  uni- 
verfal obedience  and  virtue.  For  the  apollle  does  not  fay, 
that  all  enemies  Ihall  be  dcjh'oved,  aboiiihed,  extirpated  o?*- 
annihilated  :  but  that  all  enemies  fhall  be  fuhdued  and  -put 
under  Chrift's  feet.  So  that  the  true  and  only  confequence 
from  the  fuppolition,  that  fm  is  an  enemy,  is,  that  it  fhalt 
be  fubdued,  refLrained  and  put  under  Chrift's  feet ;  which 
may  be  done  in  a  fenfe  true,  proper,  and  as  Dr.  C.  grants,* 
o-lorious  to  Chrifl,  without  the  abolition  of  it. 

lN[Df:F.D  the  apoille  lays,  that  ^^  the  laft  enem.y,  death, 
'•  fhrdl  be  dellroyed  ;'*  which  by  no  means  implies^  thar 
all  other  enemies  ihall  be  dellroyed.  It  may  mean,  what 
our  trandators  evidently  underilood  by  it,  that  the  lafl  in- 
llance  which  we  ihall  have  of  the  deftrudtion  of  any  enemy, 
will  be  in  the  defiruclion  of  death. The  words  literal- 
ly, and  according  to  the  order  of  the  original,  are  thus  tranl'- 
lated  ;  the  lall  enemy  is  deilroyed  death '5  and  they  may 
mean,  and  may  very  properly  be  rendered  thus,  Death  is 
deilroyed  the  lafl  enemy.  Now  fuppofe  an  hiflorian,  in 
the  account  of  a  battle,  fliould  fay,  The  general  was  killed 
the  lad  enemy  :  mufl  we  neceftarily  undcrfland  him  ta 
mean,  that  all  the  enemies  of  the  whole  army  were  kil- 
led, and  the  general  was  killed  after  all  the  refl? 
Might  not  his  words  be  juflly  taken  in  this  fenfe,  that 
the  general  was  the  lafl  enemy  who  fell,  and  many  others 
liiight  efcape  r  Or 

*P.  193. 


I  Cor.  XV.  24--<t9,  atifidcrcd.  '2.2 j 

Or  death  may  by  the  apoftle  be  called  the  hift  enemy 
proverbially  and  with  reipecl  to  this  liie  only  ;  as  it  is  now 
fometimes  called  the  lafl:  debt  due  to  nature.  Since  the 
exprellion,  *'  the  laft  enemy  that  fljall  be  defcroycd  is 
'^  death/'  is  capable  of  this  lenle  ;  and  fince  it  does  not 
appear,  that  it  imphes,  that  all  other  enemies  will  be  de- 
ftroyed  ;  therefore  it  is  no  proof  of  univeru;!  falvation  ; 
as  both  fm  and  mifery  may  ftill  be  allowed  to  be  enemies 
and  yet  may  be  in  exigence,  after  the  deitrudion  of 
death. 

But  it  may  be  alTerted  In  a  true  and  proper  fenfe,  that 
fm,  in  the  damned;,  is  not  an  enemy.  It  docs  no  damage 
to  Chrift,  to  his  kingdom,  or  to  the  peace  and  happinefs 
of  his  fubjccls.  It  is  to  be  fure,  an  enemy  in  no  other 
fenfe,  than  the  damned  themfelves  are  enemies:  and  if 
from  that  exprefhon,  ''  the  hH  enemy  that  is  r^rjlrr.yedy 
*'  abnl'ifijed,:'.'j.'.*iyiA'-".^  is  death/'  it  follow,  that  all  Chrift's 
enemies  will  be  abolidied  or  annihilated  ;  it  v/ill  aifo  follow, 
that  all  the  damned  will  be  annihilated.  So  that  if  this  ar- 
gumicnt  prove  any  thing,  it  proves  too  much  ;  lo  much 
that  it  entirely  overthrows  univerfal  falvation. 

But  fm  in  the  damned,  and  the  damned  themfelve?, 
inftead  of  doing  any  damage  to  Chriil  or  his  fubjedls,  v/ili 
be  the  means  of  increaiins  the  glory  of  the  former  and  the 
happinefs  of  the  latter,  to  eternity. 

It  is  obfervable,  that  the  verb  '.'.a.^,'iiyu,^  is  never  in  all 
the  New  Teftament,  applied  to  exprcfs  the  deiirucTiion  of 
all  vv'icked  men^  of  the  enemies  of  God  in  general,  or  of 
all  fni.  Therefore  as  neither  fin  itfelf,  nor  all  the  enemies 
of  God,  are  faid  ^A':«p7'£/«r-S^«/,  to  be  ahoV/bed,  we  have  no 
right,  even  on  the  fuppofition  that  iin  is  an  enemy  in  eve- 
ry fenfe,  to  fay  that  it  will  l)e  cihoUJhed,  or  extirpated  from 
the  univerfe.-^^ — The  peculiar  phrafeology  of  the  paifagc 
now  under  coniideration,  is  worthy  of  particular  notice. 
In  the  24th  verle  it  is  faid,  that  Chrift  will '  UilmliJ}},  y.<*.y  -crjf , 
^'  ail  rule  and  all  authority  and  power."  But  he  is  faid  to 
put  all  his  enemies  under  his  feet,  ^-a  irro  "oic  tt'Jxk  st'^-.i, 
verfe  25th  ;  and  to  pur.  all  things  under  his  feet, 
'.'Ti'l^'^v,  vTz  y.-j:  rTv/«;  u-j^,^-j^  verfe  zjx\\.  AhJiougli  there- 
fore all  the  raky  and  all  x\ic  authority  and  )><;u'dr  of  Chrilt's 
enemies  fnall  be  aboliilied,  and  the  apoRlc  is  careful  to  in- 
form us  of  that ;  yet  he  is  equally  careful  to  inform  us, 
that  his  enemies  themfelves  i'hnU  be  ovXy  fuhjcclcd  to  hinu 

and 


!Z2S  Dr.   C's  j^rgimir/it  from 

find  put  under  his  feet ;  as  it  feems,  defignedly  iliifting  the 
phraieology  and  avoiding  the  application  of  the  verb 
::a''tfr^  ?.Y  to  them.  What  right  then  have  we  to  apply  it  to 
them  ?  Is  not  the  application  of  words  to  perfons  or  things, 
to  which  the  spoPdc  delignediy  did  not  apply  them,  a  grofs 
perveriion  of  fcripture  ? 

Doctor  C*s  argument  that  lin  will  be  deftroyed,  de- 
pends wholly  on  this  general  propofition,  That  all  Chrift's 
enemies  will  be  deftroyed.  Now  the  word  deilroycd  in 
this  cafe,  doubtlefs  means  either  ahoUtlon,  or  rejtra'int  and 
fitn'ijhment .  If  it  mean  ahclitio^:,  extirpatlony  annihilat'iGn ', 
then  as  was  before  obferved,  all  the  enemies  of  Chrill:  will 
be  annihilated,  and  the  dodrine  of  univerfai  falvation  falls 
to  the  ground  at  once.  If  it  mean  refiramty  pumfnment, 
-preveniing  jro7n  doing  imfchiefy  &c,  then  fm  may  be  laid  to 
be  deftroyed,  and  yet  have  an  endlefs  exiftcnce  in  the  uni- 
verfc. 

If  then  thefe  words,  '*  The  la  ft  enemy  death  fhail  be 
*'  dellroycd,''  do  certainly  imply,  that  all  Chrift's  ene- 
mies ihall  be  deftroycd  ?  and  if  it  be  alfo  certain,  that  iin 
/;;  the  damned  is,  in  every  proper  fenfe,  an  enemy,  thofe 
^vords  are  equally  inconliftent  with  Dr.  C's  fcheme,  as 
Aviththe  oppoiite.  They  either  imply  an  univerfai  annihi- 
lation of  all  Chrift's  enemies  ;  and  io  are  equally  inconlift- 
ent with  univerfai  falvation,  as  with  endlefs  torment ;  or 
they  are  not  at  ail  inconfiftentwith  it,  and  therefore  are 
no  argument  againft  it.  If  they  imply  an  univerfai  anni^ 
hilation  of  the  enemies  of  Chrift,  as  they  are  equally  a- 
gainft  Dr.  C's  fcheme,  as  againft  the  oppofite  ;  it  equal- 
ly concerns  him,  as  his  opponents,  to  provide  an  anfwer 
to  them,  and  it  is  abfurd  in  him  to  object  them  to  the  doc- 
trine of  his  opponents. 

The  fum  of  what  has  been  faid  on  this  head  of  the  de- 
ftruction  of  fin  is  (i)  That  it  does  not  appear,  that  ftn  in 
the  damned  is  properly  an  enemy  to  Chrift  and  his  king- 
dom ;  as  it  does  no  harm  to  that  kingdom.  (2)  If  it  be 
xlctermined  that  fm  in  the  damned  is  an  enemy  to  Chrift^  it; 
.will  not  follow,  that  it  will  be  defiroyed.^  meaning  by  de- 
ftruclion  annihuathn  or  abolliicn  ;  becaufe  it  is  no  v/herc 
,fa:d,  that  ail  Chrift's  enemies  v/ill  be  deftroyed,  )c*1'-f7  ^ire*/, 

, Or  even  if  this  were  afferted  concerning  all  Chrift's 

enemies,   and  the  verb  "^^"^"^f^?-''  were  applied  to    them  all, 
k  would  not  certainly  determine,  that  they  will  all  be  ai^v 

nihilatcd,, 


I  Co?-.  XV.   24 — 20,   ccjifidered.  zin 

riihiiated,  cis  that  verb  is  capable  of  anotjier  fcnfe.  iind  is 
doubtlefs  ufed  in  another  lenTe,  Heb.lT.  14;  ^''iliat  throuo-h 
*'  death  he  mi^w. defiroy^  x«.>.cvncrM,  him  that  had  the  power 
*^  of  death,  thst  is  the  devil.'-  Dr.  C.  did  not  believe,  ihut 
the  devil  will  be  annihilated.  Therefore  if  that  vei'b  were 
applied  to  all  Chrift's  enemies,  and  fin  in  the?  dan:ncd 
were  allov/ed  to  be  an  enemy  to  Chrift ;  ilill  it  rriight  mean 
fomething  elfe  befide  annihilation:  nay,  it  miifl;  neceflarily 
mean  fomething  elfe,  or  it  would  equally  difprove  univcr- 
fai  falvation,   as  endlefs  rnifery. 

In  Dr.  C's  difcourfe  on  this  fubjeci:,  it  is  implied,  that 
when  a  fmner  is  broup-ht  to  repentance  and  cordial  rccon- 
ciliation  to  Chrift,  he  is  deffroyed.  His  v.ords  arc/* 
*'  Chriil  fhall  continue  vefted    with  regal  power,    till  he 

**  has  brought  all  enemies  ivAo/iwjesJion  to  him Chriil 

^'  will  continue  head   of  the    kinpdom   of  Qoi}t till  he 

*'  has  3LQbid\\y  fuhdufd  all  enemies Is  im  an  enemy  ? — 

."  then  it  Ihall  be  deftroyed for  Chriil"  mure  dc/hoy   all 

*^  enemies/'  By  tliefe  feveral  exprejlions  it  appears,  tha,t 
it  was  Dr.  C's  opinion,  that  all  Chrift's  enemies  v/ili  be 
fubjeeied  to  him,  that  they  all  will  be  fuhdiied  under  hini, 
and  that  they  vv^li  ail  be  ^V//-ro_)/<f^  by  him.  Now  it  is  a- 
■  bundantly  evident,  xSi^X-hy  fnhje^xion,  fubduingy  Szc,  when 
applied  to  thofe,  who  die  in  impenitence,  Dr.  C.  mcaiu  a 
cordial  reconciliation  to  Chriil :  and  lie  by  no  means 
]ield,  that  thefe  enemies  thus  reconciled,  will  be  deftroyed 
by  annihilation.  It  follows  therefore,  that  as  all  Clirift's 
enemies  are  to  be  deftroyed,  to  be  dejiroycd,  and  to  be  re^ 
concilcd  to  Chnft  In  true  repentance,  arc,  according  to  Dr. 
C.  one  and  the  lame  thing.  Therefore,  w hen  Paul  was 
(Converted' he  was  r/<^/?/-o>'f^ ;  and  as  he  will  eternally  be 
the  fubjeci  of  repentance,  he  will  fulTer  an  eternal  deftruc 
tion.  The  puniflmient  of  God's  enemies  is,  that  they  iiiail 
be  deftroyed  ;  they  ihall  be  punifned  w  ith  everlafting  de- 
ftruaion.  But  what  puniflimcnt  are  everlafting  repentance 
;ind  complacency  in  God?  they  are  among  the  greateil 
bleJUnp-s  \vhich  Deity  himfelf  can  confer  on  a  creature. 
Endleis  deftruaion  and  endlefs  falvation  lu'c  throughout 
the  fcriptures  oppofed  to  each  other.  But  accordmg  to 
Dr.  C's  fchem.e,  they  perfedly  harmonize  and    mutually 

jmply  each  other. Now  whether  this    fchem.c    lianno- 

nize  with  the  fcrioturcs  is  fabniittcd  to  the  reader. 

?^P.  214,  215, 


^20  ^o^or  C's  xn^mnent  from 


Whether  this  icheine  harmotiize  with  the  fcriptares  or 
not,,  it  doer,  not  harmonize  with  other  parts  of  13r.  C's 
book.  He  fays,**  that  by  the  deilradion  of  the  wicked, 
mentioned  in  2  Thei\  I.  9,  and  in  various  other  texts,  *^  we" 
'•'  are  very  obvioufiy  led  to  nnderftand  mifcry,''^  Surely 
converllon  from  fm  to  hohnels,  and  cfpecially  the  everlaft- 
ing  holinefs  of  the  prints  in  heaven,   is  not  m'lfery. 

Oil.  C.  Iiolds,  that  ail  enemies  v/iil  be  fubdued  and  fub- 
jecled  to  Chrill,  and  that  fm  vv-ill  be  fubje6ted  to  him, 
when  it  is  aboiilhed  or  annihihited.  But  if  lin  be  fubjed:- 
ed  to  Chriib,  when  it  is  annihilated,  then  the  fmner  would 
be  fubjedsd  to  Chrift  were  he  annihilated.  But  this  kind 
of  fubjeclion  is  no  more  a  cordial  fubje^tion,  than  that 
which  is  effected  by  mere  power,  and  which  confifts  in  re- 

ilraint  and  punifliraent. Belide,   according    to  Dr.    C. 

there  arc  two  ways  of  fubjecting  to  Chrift  intended  in  'this 
paflage  ;  one  is  by  cordial  rcconcihation,  the  other  is  by 
annihilation.  This  then  will  keep  in  countenance  the  op- 
ponents of  Dr.  C.  who  believe,  that  there  are  two  ways 
of  fubjecling  to  Chrid: ;  one  by  cordial  reconciliation^  which 
refpecLS  the  elecT:  only  ;  the  other  by  rcilraint  and  punilh- 
nient,  which  rcfpecls  the  reprobate. 

On  the  whole,  vvhether  this  pafTage  be  fufficient  to 
prove  an  univerj'al  abolition  of  fm,  is  now  left  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  reader. 

2.  Doctor  C.  was  of  the  opinion,  that  i  Cor.  XV. 
24 — 29,  teaches,  that  before  the  iinifliing  of  the  media- 
torial fcheme,   the  fecond  death  will   be   deilroyed. He 

fa3's,*   **   The  fecond  death  may    with  as,  much  propriety 

be  called  an  enemy,  as  the  fir  ft  death.- Let  any  fenl'e 

be  aifigned,  in  \Vhich  the  Jirit  death  can  be  properly 
fpokefi  of  as  an  enenw,  audit  will  at  once  be  eai'y  to 
make  it  appear,  that  the  fecond  death  is,  in  the  fame 
^Qn£e,  as  truly  an  enemy,  and  much  more  fo.'^ — '^  Isf 
death,  the  I'econd  death,  an  enemy  ?  Then  this  ene- 
my ihall- be  deilroyed  ;  for  Chrifl  muit  deilroy  all  ene- 
*^  mies.^'  This  is  the  Doctor's  argmnent  ;  in  anfwer 
to  which  two  obfervations  may  be  made- That  the  fe- 
cond death  is  not  an  enemy,  in  the  ^Qn^e  which  the  Doc- 
tor's argument  implies That  if  it  were  in  every  fenfe 

an  enemy,  it  would  not  follow,  that  it  ihall  be  deilroy- 
ed, i.   e.   ahol'ijhed. 

Tiii: 

**^'P.   224,       *    P.    210.       t  p.    215. 


1   dr.  AT.   24 — 29,  confickvecl,  231 

The  reader  hath  feen  the  obCervations  made  above  con- 
cerning fin  as  an  enemy  and  concerning  the  deftruciion  of 
lin  :  iimilar  obfervations  may  be  made  concernino-  the  fe- 
cond  death. 

(i)   The  fecond  death  is   not  an  enemy   in  the  fenfc 

which  Dr.   C^s  argument  im.pHes  and  requires. If  ihc 

Doctor  meant,  that  the  fecond  death  is  an  enemv  to  thofe 
who  are  the  fabjects  of  it,  as  it  deftroys  their  happinefs 
and  prevents  their  admiilion  to  a  glorious  inimortahty  ; 
this  is  granted.  But  it  is  not  granted,  that  therefore  it 
v/ill  be  deflroyed  ;  and  for  the  Dodlor  to  take  it  for  grant- 
ed, that  tlierefore  it  v/ill  be  deilroyed,  is  the  fame  thinp-  as 
to  take  for  granted  that  all  mankind  v/ill  finally  be  adm.it— 
ted  to  a  glorious  immortality,  which  is  the  grand  fubjccL  of 

tlie  prefent  controverfy. But  if  the  Doftor  meant,  that 

the  fecond  death  is  an  enemy  toChrift,  as  it  prevents  the 
brightefl:  diiplay  of  his  glory,  the  greateft  profperity  of 
his  kingdom,  and  the  greateil  happinefs  of  his  lubjeccs  ;  in 

this  fenfe  it  is  denied  to  be  an  enemy. This  is  a  fenfe  in 

which  the  firft  death  is  an  enemy,  and  notv/ithfianding 
what  Dr.  C.  fays,  it  does  not  feem  '^  eafyto  make  it  ap- 
"  pear,  that  the  fecond  death  is,  in  the  fame  fenfe,  as 
*^  truly  an  enemy.''  The  firil:  death,  while  it  continues, 
prevents  the  brighteft  diiplay  of  the  glory  of  Chriit,  the 
greatefc  profperity  of  liis  kingdom,  and  the  greateft  hap- 
pinefs of  his  fubjecis  :  if  it  Ihould  continue,  it  would  be 
inccnfillent  wiih  the  promifes  of  Chriit,  with  the  complete 
falvaticn  of  the  eledt,  and  would  defeat  the  gofpel.  Novxt 
to  make  it  aouear,  that  in  this  fenfe  the  fecond  death  is  au 
enemy,  it  niay  be  prefumed,  is  not  a  more  eafy  tafc,   than 

to  prove  the  falvation  of  all  men. The  fecond  death  is 

no  more  an  enemy  to  Chrift,  to  his  kingdom,  or  to  his 
faithful  fubjecls,*  than  the  execution  of  fome  mod  attro- 
cious  and  ungrateful  rebels,  whofe  Hves  cannot  be  fparcJ 
confifrently  with  the  glory  of  their  king,  the  profperity  of 
his  kingdom,  or  the  happinefs  of  his  faithful  fubjec^s;  is 
an  enemy  to  the  king,  to  his  kingdom,  or  to  his  faithful 
fubjecls. 

Doctor  C.  further  urges,  that  '^  the  fecond  death  is 
''  the  Jail  enemy,  and  the  only  one  that  is  i'oJ'*  If  it 
be  no  enemy,  it  i's  neither  the  lafl-  nor  the //y?  ^enemv. 
Therefore,   '^  itfeems"  7j5if  <^  r,eaibnable,  w  f«n  tiie  apof- 

'•  tie 

%  P.   210. 


2^^  '  ■'    i^r.   Cs  argument  front 

*'  tie  fays,  the  la  ft  enemy  ^jjhlch  Is  death  y  ft}  all  he  deftroyect, 
^^  to  nnderitanci  him  to  mean  by  deaths  the  fecond  dsath,'^ 
The  firit  death  is  in  the  fenJe  before  given,  the  lafl  enemy  ; 
the  lalt  who  prevents  the  complete  difplay  of  Chrift's  glo- 
ry, the  lafc  who  prevents  the  perfeftion  of  his  kingdom, 
the  laft  Vv'ho  has  power  to  hurt  the  faints.  After  the  de- 
ftrudion  of  this  death,  they  immediately  receive  the  adop- 
tion of  fons.  Althougli  the  devils  and  thofe  who  have 
been  perfecutors  in  this  world,  will  ilill  be  in  exiftence  af- 
ter the  dePcruciionof  the  firll  death,  they  will  no  more  have 
it  in  their  power  to  difhonour  ChrirL,  or  to  interrupt  the 
happinefs  of  his  fubjefls,   than  if    they  were  annihilated. 

(2)  If  the  fecond  death  were  in  every  fenfe  an  enemy, 
it  would  not  foliov;,  that  it  Ihall  be  deftroyedy  meaning  aho- 
iijhed.  All  t]ie  enemies  of  God  or  of  Chriit,  are  nowhere 
fciid  to  he  (d)oifted  y-u",ttfyi.TUeti^  meaning  annihilation.  To 
be  ftihdued,  fuhjecledy  put  under  feety  is  by  no  means  the 
fame  as  to  be  annihilated.  If  therefore  the  fecond  death 
h'z  ever  fo  truly  and  properly  an  enemy,  the  utmoft  that 
v/ould  thence  follow,  is,  that  it  would  be  fo  retrained  and 
fuhjected  to  Chriil,  us  to  be  prevented  from  doing  mifchief, 
apd  to  be  made  an  inilrument  of  promoting  the  glory  of 
God,  and  the  happinefs  of  his  kingdom.  In  this  fenfe  it 
may  be  granted,  that  the  fecond  death  will  be  deftroyed; 
yet  the  i'alvation  of  all  men  would  no  more  be. implied  in 
the  conceffion,  than  -it  is  implied  in  the  deftruftion  of  the 
devil,  mentioned,  Keb.  U.  14,  that  he  will  be  annihila- 
ted. Nor  can  we  hold,  that  all  Ghrift's  enemies  will  be 
deftroyedm  the  fenfe  nov/  oppofed,  without  holding  the 
annihilation  of  the  wicked,  and  giving  up  univerfal  fal* 
vation. 

T}k.  C.  endeavours  to  make  out,  that  if  death,  the  lafl 
enemy,  do  mean  temporal  death,  iiill  the  deftrutlion  of  this 
death  implies  univerfal  fal vation.  ^*  Simple  reftoration 
*^  to  life,-"'  fiys  he,*  "'^  is  not  the  thing  the  fcripture  means 
*'  by  death  deftroyed.  To  be  fure  the  apoiUe  Paul  had 
^^  quite  another  notion  of  it. — Whst  is  the  idea  he  leads 
*'  ii3  to  entertain  of  it  ?  Plainly  not  a  bare  return  to  life, 
^^  but  inch  an  one  as  is  connected  with  a  g-lorious  immor- 
'^  Laiity.''  That  in  this  chapter  the  apollle  fpeaks  of  luch 
a  return  to  life,  as  is  connected  with  a  glorious  iminortality, 
IB  granted  ;  becaule  in  this  chanter  he  is  fueakina  of  the 


relurreftion 


P.  211, 


3  Cor.  XP\  J4~29,  mfidercl  J3^ 

^^furreaion  of  the  faints  only.     The  Dodor  indeed  ^c\h 
us    that  It  was  .ui//;  him  -beyond  a]I  controverlV  evident, 
that  theapoftle  is  fpeaking  here,   not    of  a  partial,   bu 
•   univerfal  refarreaion.^>      To  others  however  it  is  be- 
yond all  controverfy  evident,,   that  the  apoftle   is  fpcal  ir^ 
here  of  the  refurre Aion  of  the  righteous  only.     Even  the 
JJoctor  acknowledges,  that  after  the  28th  verfe    the   apof- 
tie_       confines  his  difcourfe  to  the  righteous,  v/ithout  fay- 
*'  mg  any  thing  of  the  wicked. f"  Now  this  affords  fome 
ground  of  prefumption  at  leaft,   that  in  the  former  part  of 
the  chapter  too,  he  confines  his  difcourfe  to  the  refurrec- 
tion  of  the  righteous.     Nor  has  Dr.  C.  given  any  reafon/ 
behde  that  v/hich   has  been    already  examined,   viz.  That 
the  comparifon  between  the  damage  by  Adam,  and  the  ad- 
vantage  by  Chriil,  lies  in   this  very  thing,   that    the  fame 
all  men  are  meant  in  both  parts  of  that  eSprefiion,  -  as  in 
'.'  Adam  all  die,   even  fo  in  Chrifl  fnall  all  be  made  alive.'' 
So  that  Dr.  C's  argument,t   that  from    the  refurrcction  of 
all  mankind,  it  follows,  that  all  will  be  faved,  depends  on 
principles,   which    are   neither   granted  nor   proved,  and 
therefore  is  utterly  inconclufive: 

He  further  lays,  *-  TK^sfecond  death,  ftrictly  and  pro- 
"  perly  fpeaking,  is  the  last -enemy,  and  the  only 
''  ONE,  that  is  fo.''  Then  furely  there  will  not  be  ^iihird, 
3.  fourth  de^th,  &c,  &c,  for  ages  of  ages.  Yet  this  is  taught 
in  other  parts  of  his  book  ^   as  in    the   following    paflage, 

*#.<  They  may  all- — i^be    doomed -to    a   fcate   of  mi- 

fery,   which   ihall    laft  for  an  age  :   In  which  il'diefnnie 

-may^be  wrought  upen  to  fubmit  themlelves  to  God 

•Others  may  die  in    this  ftate  ftupid And  thole 


€( 

(i 
(( 

^^  who  thus  died  in  their  obfdnacy  may    again be  put 

*^  into 'a  place  of  fuffering  for  another  age  ;  in  \s'\\\c\\  fow.e 
''  may  be  reduced and  others  fcand'itout  Itill.    Thefe 


others  may,  in  yet  another  form  of  exigence,  be  i'ent 
^'  into  a  place  of  difcipline  for  another  age  ;  and  fo  on,  till 
'^  there  has  been  torment  for  ages  of  ages.''  Here  the 
Doctor  diftindly  mentions  three  future  ftatcs  of  fuifcring, 
and  fuppofes  there  maybe  others  continued  in  liicceliion 
for  ages  of  ages,  which  are  fo  many  difiint^t  deaths,  as 
really  as  the  firft  ftate  of  fuffering  after  this  life,  is  the  f^-- 
Gond  death,  with  refped  to  temporal  death.  What  right 
then  had  the  doctor  to  fay,  and  with  what  confillency  could 

H  h     '  iic 

t  P.  2.07.    }P.2ii.    *  P.  210;  211.    **P.  309,  310. 


^34  DoSIor  Cs  argument  from 

he  fay,  that  xhefecond  death  is  the  loft  enemy,  and  the  m» 
ly  one  that  is  fo  ? 

II.  The  other  argument  of  Dr.  C.  is,  that  the  reward 
of  the  good  and  faithful  fubjecls  of  Chrift  is  to  be  beftow- 
ed  on  them  in  the  kingdom  of  Chrift ;  and  therefore  Chrift' s 
kingdom  will  not  be  at  an  end,  till  after  they  fhall  have  en- 
joyed that  reward  for  fome  time  at  leaft  ;  and  therefore 
will  not  be  at  an  end,  at  the  fecond  coming  of  Chrift^  or 
immediately  after  the  general  judgment.''* This  argu- 
ment w^holly  depends  on  the  fuppofition,  that  at  the  time 
at  which  the  work  of  falvation  ihall  be  completed  by  Chrift 
he  will  entirely  abdicate  all  government  of  fuperin tenden- 
cy over  thofe  who  fhall  be  favedby  him.  If  otherwife  ;  if 
he  fhall  ftill  retain  a  fuperintendency  over  thofe  who  fliall 
be  faved  by  him  ;  if  he  fliall  ftill  be  their  immediate  head 
or  ruler,  and  the  fource  of  their  happinefs  ;  though  he 
ihall  not  be  the  fupreme  ruler  of  the  univerfe,  nor  even 
of  the  redeemed  ;  but  in  this  refped  he  /hall  refign  the 
kingdom  to  the  Father  :  he  may  be  faid  yet  to  have  a  king- 
dovn,  and  to  lit  on  his  throne  ;  and  to  reign,  &c.  Before 
the  refignation  of  the  mediatorial  kingdom,  the  govern-* 
ment  of  all  thhigs  is  in  the  hands  of  Chrift,  being  delega- 
ted by  the  Father  to  this  government.  Or  as  Dr.  C.  ex- 
preffes  it,  '^  he  will  be  head  over  all ;  he  will  govern  all ; 
*'  he  will  be  all  unto  all."f  Chrift  during  that  period  a6ts 
as  the  fupreme  head  of  the  univerfe.  But  when  he  fhall 
have  refigned  the  mediatorial  kingdom,  the  Father  will 
act  as  fupreme  head.  Still  Chrift  may,  under  the  Father, 
be  the  head  and  governor  of  his  redeemed  and  faved  peo- 
ple. The  Father  will  be  fupreme  ruler,  and  Chrift  with 
his  Church  united  to  him,  and  dependent  on  him,  will  re- 
ceive the  benefits  of  his  government.  This  does  not  im- 
ply, but  that  Chrift  himfelf,  in  fubordination  to  the  Fa- 
ther, will  have  a  government  over  his  faints. 

Nor  does  it  imply,  l:4at  that  the  fon  as  one  with  the  Fa- 
ther, as  being  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  him,  fliall 
reign  after  the  refignation  of  the  delegated  fovereignty  o- 
ver  all  things.  It  may  be  prefumed,  that  no  man  will  fay, 
that  the  Father  does  not  reign  now  while  the  adminiftra- 
tion  of  univerfal  government  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Son. 
If  he  did  not  now  reign,  there  would  be  no  propriety  in 
fpeaking  as  the  fcripture  often  does,  '^  of  him  that  fitteth 

«  on 

*    P.  222,  223.       t  P.    2I7« 


I   Cor,  XV.  24 — 29,  confidered.  2^r 

^^  on  the  throne,  and  the  Lamb  ;• '  nor  any  propriety  in 
the  promife,  Job.  XV.  16;  **  That  whatibever  ye  /liall 
*'  aflv  of  the  Father  inmy  name,  he  may  give  it  you  j^' 
nor  in  thofe  Vv'ords  of  James,  Chap.  I.  17 ;  '^  Every  good 
^^  gift,  and  every  perfed  gift  is  from  above,  and  cometh 
'^  down  from  the  Father  of  lights.'^     But  I  need  not  add 

texts,  to  prove  this. For  the  fame  reafon  therefore  that 

the  Father  now  reigns  in  and  with  the  Son ;  fo  after  the 
relignation  of  the  general  delegated  adminiilration,  the 
Son  will  ftill  reign  in  and  with  the  Father.  Now  the  go- 
vernment is  conducled  in  the  name  and  by  the  immediate 
agency  of  the  Son :  then  it  will  be  conduced  in  the  name 
and  h}'-  the  immediate  agency  of  the  Father.  Yet  as  now 
the  Father  reigns  in  and  with  the  Son  ;  fo  then  will  the 
Son  reign  in  and  with  the  Father.  Chriit  now  reigns  with 
fupreme  Sovereignty  by  delegation  from  the  Father.  Af- 
ter the  refignation  of  this  fovereignty,  he  will  flill  reign 
over  the  faints  by  delegation  from  the  P'ather,  but  with 
dominion,  which  fhallbe  fubordinate  to  that  of  the  Father. 
He  will  alfo  at  the  fame  time  reign  in  and  with  the  Father, 
in  the  exercife  of  a  dominion,  which  fhall  not  be  delegated, 
but  which  is  elTential  to  him  as  a  divine  perfon,  and  one 
with  the  Father ;  as  the  Father,  by  virtue  of  his  divinity, 
now  neceiTarily  reigns  in  and  with  the  Son. So  that  al- 
though Chriit  fhall  immediately  after  the  general  judg- 
ment, refign  the  fupreme  delegated  fovereignty,  which 
he  now  poffefTes ;  ftill  he  will  reign  in  thefe  two  refped:s, 
by  a  delegated  fubordinate  authority  over  his  faints  ;  and 
by  an  undelegated,  efTential  authority,  which  by  virtue  of 
his  divinity,  he  polTeires  neceiTarily  with  the  Father. 

But  whether  the  true  idea  of  Chrifl's  dehvering  up  the 
kingdom  to  the  Father,  concerning  which  Divines  have 
repeatedly  differed,  have  been  now  precifcly  exhibited  or 
not  ;  ftill  the  fcriptures  necelTitate  us  to  believe,  that  in 
feme  fenfe  Chrift  will  reign  to  an  abfolute  eternity.  Heb. 
I.  8  ;  *<  Unto  the  Son,  he  faith,  Thy  throne,  O  God, 
''  is  forever  and  ever."  Rev.  XXII.  5;  ''  They""'  [the 
faints]  '^  (liall  reign  forever  and  ever."  1  Pet.  V.  4 ; 
'^  When  the  chief  fhcpherd  fliall  appear,  ye  fhall  receive 
'^  a  crown  of  glory  that  fadeth  not  away.''  i  Cor,  IX. 
0,1^ 'y  "  We  do  it  to  obtain  an  wcofruptUIe  crown."  Heb. 
Xll.   28  ;     *^    We   receiving    a  kingdom   ikat  cannot  be 

<'  move  J" 


a§6  -O'"*   C'j"  argument  from 

<^  mover^.^^  Both  ihefe  laft  texts  are  quoted  by  Dr.C.*' 
to  prove  that  the  righteous  fhall  live  and  be  happy  without 
end  :  and  they  equally  prove  that  they  Hiall  reJgn  without 
enrL — But  the  fsints  are  to  lit  down  with  Chrift  on  his  throne 
and  reign  v/ilhhirn  :  and  it  is  abfurd  to  imagine,  that  they  are 
to  reign  after  the  ceuation  of  his  reign  ;  that  they  are  to  wear 
crowns  vvhlch  are  incorruptible  and  fade  not  away ;  but  that 
his  crown  is  corruptible  and  fadeth  away.  Befide  ;  the  king- 
dom v/hich  the  apoffles  and  primitive  chriftians  received,  ac- 
cording toHeb.  Xli.  28,  was  not  the  kingdom  of  the  Father, 
as  diitinguii'hed  from  that  of  the  Son,  but  was  the  kingdom 
of  the  Son,  which  he  himfelf  had  then  lately  fet  up.  This 
kingdom  \.  faid  to  be  incapable  of  being  ihaken  or  diuolved  ; 
and  therefore  is  endlefs,  as  Dr.  C.  himfelf  believed  :  other- 
"wii'e  it  was  abihrd  for  him  to  quote  that  text  to  prove,  that 

the  righteous  will  live  and  be  happy  without  end. -Dan. 

VII.  14.  'f  His"  [the  Son  of  man's]  ^'  dominion  is  an 
*'  everlafiing  dominion,  which  ftjall  not  pafs  away,  and  his 
*'  kingdom  that  which  /bail  not  bs  dejrroyed.^^  Ifai.  IX. 
7  :  *'  Of  the  increafe  of  his  government  and  peace  there 
**  iliall  be  no  end.'^  Liike  I.  33  ;  **He  lliall  reign  over  the 
*^  houfe  of  Jacob /brf7;<?r,  and  of  his  kingdom  xherefiall  he 
**  no  end.'''' — ?*lore  determinate  language  could  not  be  ufed, 
to   exprefs  the  endlefs    continuance    of  Chrill's  kingdom. 

It  is  therefore  granted,  that  the  kingdom  of  Chrill:  will 
continue,  after  the  general  judgment,  and  even  without 
end.  Yet  it  does  not  thence  follow,  that  he  W'il]  not  at 
that  time  have  finifhed  the  niediatorial  work,  or  rather  the 
work  of  faving  fnmers.  I  make  this  dillinclion,  becaufe 
though  Chrifl;  will  at  the  general  judgment,  have  finijhed 
the  work  of  faving  fmners  from  wrath  ;  yet  he  will  with- 
out end  be  the  mediator  betv/een  the  Father  and  the  faints, 
and  will  be  the  medium  of  all  divine  communications  to 
them,  whetlier  of  knowledge,  of  happinefs  or  of  honour. 
It  by  no  means  follows  from  the  circumllance,  that  Chrift 
will,  after  the  general  Judgment,  retain  a  kinglv  power 
and  dominion,  that  he  will  exert  that  power  in  dtlivcrinn- 
(inners  from  lin  and  mJfery. 

The  whole  of  Dr.  C's  difcourfe  on  this  fubjedl  implies, 
that  the  kinG;dom  of  the  Father,  in  which  he  Ihall  be  all  in 
all,  will  not  begin  immediately  after  the  general  judgment. 
But  how  can  this  be  reconciled  with  Malt.  XIII.  40 — 44; 

^  p.   ity. 


I    Cor.  XV.   24 — 29,    co'tifidcred,  237 

*'  As  therefore  the  tares  are  gathered  and  burnt  in  the  fire; 
f'  fofnall  it  be  in  the  end  of  this  ivorld.  The  Son  ci  Man 
*'  fliall  fend  forth  his  angels,  and  they  /hall  gather  our  of 
*'  his  kingdom  all  things  that  offend,  and  them  ihat  clo  ini- 
'^  quity  ;  and  (hall  caft  them  into  a  furnace  of  lire  ;  there 
*'  ihall  be  wailing  and  gnafhing  of  teeth.  Theiu  >>"/',  ut 
'^  that  very  time,  fliall  the  righteous  fliine  forth  as  the  fun 
*'  in  the  k'rngdom  of  their  Father/'  Thisfmgle  text  proves 
that  the  kingdom  becomes  the  Father^s  immediately  after 
the  end  of  this  world,  and  therefore  entirely  overthrows 
all  Dr.  C\s  labour  to  prove,  that  the  kingdom  doc-s  not 
become  the  Father's  till  ages  of  ages  after  the  end  of  this 
world  ;  and  equally  overthrows  his  great  labour  to  fix  a 
conftruction  on  i  Cor.  XV.  24,  confident  with  his 
fcheme. 

Beside;  the  Do6lor's  conftruftion  of  the  lad  paHage 
mentioned  feems  to  be  abfurd  in  itfelf.  For  he  '*  connects 
'^  the  end,''  as  to  the  tim^e  of  it,  "  with  Chrill's  delivery 
*^  of  the  kingdom  to  the  Father. '*f  And  by  the  inJ 
he  in  the  fame  page  explains  himfelf  to  mean  the  **  ihutting 
**  up  of  the  fcene  of  providence  with  refpect  to  the  fons 
'^  of  Adam  :"  which  is  and  can  be  no  other  than  tlic  cnJ 
of  ChrilVs  mediatorial  kingdom.  According-  to  Dr.  C. 
therefore,  the  apollle,  imder  the  infpiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  gravely  tells  us,  that  the  end  of  Chrill's  kingdi^iu 
will  be,  when  he  fhall  dehver  up  his  kingdom  to  the  Fa- 
ther :  or  the  end  of  it  fliall  be  at  the  very  time,  at  wli^h 
the  end  of  it  ihall  be  !  But  what  is  this,  but  the  molt 
childifli  tautology  !  Who  ever  imagined,  that  Chrilt  v/ould 
ftill  retain  hi*s  kingdom,  after  he  fnould  have  delivered  it 
up  ?  Surely  that  fcheme  muit  be  in  diitrels  indeed,  whicii 
requires  fuch  conftruction  as  this  to  be  put  on  ilie  iacrt  J 
fcripture  { 

Doctor.  C.  fays,  *'  The  reward  promifed,  under  the 
''  adminiflration  of  ChrifFs  kingdom,  in  this prefcnt  fuie, 
'*  in  order  to  perfuade  men  to  become  his  good  and  laith- 
''  ftil  fubjecVs,  is  not  the  final  happinefs  God  iiitends  to 
*'  beflow  upon  them  ;  but  the  hcippinefs  of  that  date  \\\\\d\ 
^'  intervenes  between  the  refurrecTion  and  God's  being 
''  all  in  all.";  But  all  the  promifes  of  the  Bible  are  p- 
v^n  in  this  prefent  fiat e ',  therefore  there  cT re  no  promilcs 
In  all  t\\Q   Bible  of  find  happinefs.     How  then   decs   FV. 

t    p.    198.      X    p.    222. 


538  Do^or  Cs  argument  from 

C.  know  that  all  men,  or  even  any  man  will  be  finally 
happy  ?  This  is  at  once  giving  up  his  lavourite  doctrine^ 
to  eilabliih  which  he  wrote  his  whole  book. 

Doctor  C.  calls  out,*  *^  What  a  poor,  low,  lean 
*'  idea  the  common  explanation  of  this  text  gives  us  of  the 
*'  final  effeds  of  Chrift's  reign — in  comparifon  with  that, 
*'  the  above  interpretation  ku  us  into  !  '*  Such  excla- 
mations occur  in  almoft  every  argument  of  his  book.  I 
obferve  therefore  concerning  them  once  for  all,  that  they 
feem  better  luited  to  work  on  thepafhons  and  imagination, 
than  on  the  reafon  ;  that  at  leaft  they  are  attempts  to  de- 
termine v/hat  is  moft  for  the  general  good  and  the  glory 
of  tiie  Deity,  not  from  revelation  or  from  fact  ;  but  a 
frirjri,  by  our  own  imagination  concerning  what  is  befl 
and  moft  ehgible.  Now  that  we  are  in  this  v/ay  utterly 
incapable  of  determining  what  is  moft  eligible,  and  moft 
for  the  divine  glory,  in  a  thoufand  inftances ;  every  man 
of  refteclion  muft  grant. 

I  HAVE  now  finifhed  mv  remarks  on  Dr.  C's  ^^  decifivc" 
argument  from  i  Cor.  XV.  24,  &c.  Whether  it  be  in- 
deed *^  decifive  ♦,"  whether  it  be  '^  unanfwerably  ftong,"f 
is  fubmitted  to  the  reader. 

We  are  next  to  confider  the  Doi^lor^s  argument  from 
Rev.  V.  13  ;  **  And  every  creature  v»'hich  is  in  heaven, 
'*  and  on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  fuch  as  are 
*'  in  the  fea,  and  all  that  are  in  them,  heard  I,  faying, 
*^  Blelling  and  honour,  and  glory  and  power  be  unto  him, 
'"  that  fitieth  upon   the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb    for- 

**  ever  and  ever." The  main  queftion  concerning  thefe 

words  is,  whether  they  ''  look  forward  to  a  completion  of 
**  the  fcheme  of  God,''  and  affert  a  faft  which  is  not  to 
take  place,  till  that  fcheme  fhall  be  completed.  This  is 
Dr.  C's  idea  :  he  fays,  they  *'  they  evidently  look  for- 
*'  ward  to  the  completion  of  that  fcheme  ;''  he  fays  it 
merely  ;  he  gives  no  reafon  to  prove  it.  The  context 
gives  rio  fuggeftions  of  fuch  an  idea.  It  may  be  prefuined, 
that  Dr.  C.  himfclf  did  not  imagine,  that  the  fong  cf  the 
four  beafts  and  four  and  twenty  elders,  contained  m  verfe 
9th,  &:c.  looked  forward  to  the  completion  of  the  fcheme 
of  God.  It  was  evidently  fung  on  occafion  of  the  Lamb's 
taking  the  book  fealed  with  feven  feals,  and  before  any  of 
thefe  feals  were  opened.  Nor  is  there  the  leaft  hint, 
tut  that  what  is  defcribed  in  the    13th  verfe,  took  place 

^  P.  125.     I  P.  211,  on 


I   Cor,  XV*  24 — 29,  confidered.  I36 

tm  the  fame  occafion  :  but  the  narration  naturally  imph'es 
that  it  did  then  take  place.  The  14th  verfe  confirms  the 
conflrudion  now  given.  <^  And  the  four  bcafts  faid, 
**  Amen.  And  the  four  snd  twenty  elders  fell  down  and 
*'  worfliipped  him  that  liveth  forever  and  ever."  Thefe 
words  are  evidently  a  part  of  the  ibng  mentioned  in  the 
9th  verfe,  as  it  v/as  fung  by  the  fame  four  beafts  and 
four  and  tv/cnty  elders.  Whereas  according  to  Dr.  C's 
conflrudion  of  the  13th  verfe,  they  are  either  a  fong 
which  is  to  be  fung  after  the  completion  of  the  fcheme  of 
God  ;  or  though  they  are  apart  of  the  fong  mentioned  in 
the  9th  verfe,  the  apollle's  account  of  that  fong  is  inter- 
rupted by  inferting  in  the  midft  of  it,  a  fong  to  be  funo-  by 
all  mankind,  after  the  completion   of  the    fcheme  of  God. 

To  afFert  therefore,  that    the  fact  of  the    13th  verfe 

did  not  take  place  on  the  occafion  of  the  lamb's  taking  the 
book  ;  but  is  to  take  place  ages  of  ages  after  the  end  of 
this  world  ;  and  to  fupport  this  alTertion  by  no  proof  or  rea- 
fon,  is  to  act  an  unreafonable  part:  efpecially  confidering 
the  context  and  the  difficulties  attending  that   conftruclion. 

ThfsE  words  appear  to  contain  a  figurative  reprefenta- 
tlon  of  all  creatures  joining  in  joy  and  praife  to  the  Father 
and  the  iamb  on  occaiionof  ChrifPs  takinfr  and  beine:  about 
to  open  the  fcals  of  the  book  fealed  with  the  itven  feais ; 
the  book  of  providence  toward  the  church.  That  fuch  re- 
prefentaiions  are  common  in  fcripture,  we  have  already 
feen,  v/hiJe  we  were  coniidering  Rom.  VIII,  19,  &c. 
Therefore  no  argument  in  favor  of  univerfai  falvation 
is  afforded  by  this  pafTage. 

Dr.  C.  mentions  feveral  other  texts  as  favouring  hia 
fcheme  ;.but  fays  himfelf,  that  he  does  not  '*  depend  on 
'*  them  as  proofs,'*  or  as  **  conclulive  in  themfelves." 
We  need  not  therefore  fpend  time  to  remark  upon  them. 
The  r«ader  of  himfelf  will  eafily  conceive  from  the  anfwcrs 
given  to  thofe  on  which  he  does  depend  as  conclufive,  what 
anfwers  would  be  given  to  the  reft. 

Toward  the  dofe  of  that  part  or  his  book,  whidi  con- 
tains the  direct  evidence  of  univerfai  falvation.  Dr.  C. 
comes  down  wonderfully,  feems  to  relent,  and  to  be  fea- 
red at  the  refult  of  his  own  reafoning.  He  owns,  that  af- 
ter all,  he  may  be  miftaken  ;  that  concerning  the  ftatc 
which  he  fuppofes  will  fucceed  the  next  ftate,  neither  the 
prophets,  Jefus  Chrift,  nor  the   apoiUes,  have    fpoken  hi 

plain 


i40  Dt,.   C-s  Scheme  confidered 

j)Ialn  and  explicit  language,  leaving  no  room  for  doubt.*' 
How  thefe  mikl  coiifpinons  are  recoucileable  with  his  many 
])reviQUs  ^Pclara-tipjiS;  tjiat  his  arguments  are  at  leail  in  his 
opinion,  ^^  evident,''-  '■ydecifive,'^  ^^  unanf'^erahly  flrong  \'''* 
that  it  15 y  pojhiyely  affirmed"    (in  P^om.    VIII.    19,  he) 

^*  that  they -liiail  be  inftiited  in  immortal  glory  ;''   that 

'^  it  is  ^hfolutely  declared  in  this  palTage  of  fcripture/* 
(Horn.  V.  12,  kc,)  ''  that  trhey''  (mankind  miiverfally) 
*'  ihall  be  made  righteous,"  kc,  kc.  remains  to  be  point- 
ed out. 

*P.  252,  253. 


CHAP.     Xlil. 

Jfi  ivhlch  D?'.   Os  fckf?ne  h  confidered ^  vAth  a  reference  it 
his  ideas  of  human  liberty  and  moral  agency. 

TTis  an  elTential  part  of  the  fyllem  of  Dr.  C.  and  of  the 
JL  generality  of  the  advocates  for: univerfal  falv^ation;l  that 
all  fixed  certainty  of  any  acVicns  of i  men,  whether  exter- 
nal or  internal,  is  inconfiHent  with  liberty  and  m.oral  agen- 
cy in  thofe  actions. Ihat  this  is  really    a    tenet  of  the 

l)o6lor  may  appear  from  the  following  quotations. 

He  fays,*  ^*  Such  exertions  of  the  Deity,  as  fliall  be 
*''  certainly  f^^W;t6  reftrain  them"  [free  agents]  *^  from 
*^  perverting  their  facultJes,  look  like  a  ?noraHnipoffibilityy 
*'  or  a  method  of  conducting  towards  free  agents,  which 
*'  is  unfit,  in  the  reafon  of  thincis,'  a!s  not  beino;  fuited  to 
'f  the  nature  of.fuch  kind- of  bjeino-s.V;  He  confiders  it 
asf  '*  inconfifteni  vjiththe powers  hefiowed'^'*  on  free  agents,  if 
*'  by  any  cxtrinfic  power,  their  faculties  are  unavoidably  put 
"  -into  exercifc  in  one  certain  way'  only.".  He  alks,  ^'  If 
*\  motives  fliould  in^  all  cafes  .be  fet  in  fuch  a  flrong  and 
'^  powerful  light,  as  that  no  wrong  choice  could  be  made — 
*'  -hoNV  could  fuch  a  method  of  operation  confifl  with  the 
'*  proper  powers  of  free  agents?  It  does  not  appear  to  the 
*^  liuman  mind,  a  thing  fit,  that  they"  [free  agents] 
**  fhoalJ  he  thus  irrefiiribly  guided  by  any  fA'/^7«//cpow- . 
"  er,  though  it  v/ere  even  divine."  And  much  more 
to  the  fame  cffecl  is   to    be    found   in    various  parts    of 

our 

''■■   Benev.  of  the  Deity ^  P.  219.     f   Ibid. 


with  reference  to  his  ideas  of  human  liberty,  -242 

our  author^s  v/ritlngs.  Indeed  it  Is  indifputably  his  fcheme 
of  liberty  and  moral  agency,  that  if  any  power  or  caufe 
extrinfic  to  the  will  itfelf,  iiiould  either  certainly  and  ef- 
fe^ually  reftrain  free  agents  from  perverting  their  facul- 
ties to  lin  and  vice  ;  or  certainly  and  effeSJually  influence 
them  to  exercife  their  faculties  in  repentance  and  virtue, 
or  in  any  one  way  ;  it  v/ould  be  entirely  inconuftent  ^Yith 
liberty  and  moral  agency. 

That  Do6lor  C.  alio  held,  that  the  future  repen- 
tance and  falvation  of  all  men,  is  certain,  and  that  this 
certainty  is  caufed  and  eirabliihed  by  a  caufe  extrinfic  to 
the  will  of  all  men,  is  evident  in  the  foJlowing  palTages 
out  of  many,*  *^  God — really  meant — an  engcgtment ,  that 
*^  mankind  univerfally  Ihould,  in  due  dme — refemble  Abra- 
'^  ham  in  his  moral  temper — which  is  the  fame  thing  with 
^^  their  beinc?  bleffed  in  Chrift,  or  being  reduced  ey  him 
'^  under  moral  fubjeftion  to  the  government  of  God/'f 
''-  They''  (all  men)  **  will  be  -jurought  upon  fooner  or  la- 
'^  ter  in  a  moral  way,  fucli  an  one  as  is  adjulted  to  moral 
*'  aaents,  to  become  righteous  perfons/':|:  ^'  It  is  abfo* 
'^  lu'tely  declared  in  this  pafiage  of  fcripture,  that  they 
*'  ihallbe  /?z<^i^  righteous,'' — **  Unlefs  they  are  thus  made 
''  righteous"&c. — ''God— has  f.hfokteiy  2Lnd unconditionally 
*^  determined— th^t  all  men,  the  whole  race  of  lapfed  Adam 
''  fiiail  fmaily  reign  in  life,  and  be  prepared  for  that  flate, 
*'  by  being /6rw(f///w/o  righteous  perfons." I!  ''  It  is  the 
^'  purpofe  of  God — that  mankind  univerfally— ihvll  cer- 
'^  tainly  and  finally  be  faved."     He  fpeaks§  of  fome    per- 

fons    as  *'  infaUihly    feleciied  for  falvation." In  thefe 

paffages  it  is  manifelt,  that  Dr.  C.  Iield,  not  onVf  an  ahfi- 
lute  infallihle  certainty  of  the  falvation  of  fome,  yea  of  all 
men  ;  but  that  tliis  certainty  is  eilabhlhed.by  God,  and  is 
the  effecl  of  his  determination,  and  alfo,  that  all  men 
will  finally  be  brought  10  repentance,  to  '^  the  moral  teni- 
'^  per  of  Abraham,''  *'  to  a  moral  fubjefcion  to  the  go- 
'*  vernment  of  God;"  and  tbat  they  faall  be  *'  made  , 
*'  righteous,"  and  ^' /brmc^// ?Vz2'o  righteous  perfons  :"  all 
which  exprefhons  imply  a  caufe  extriniic  to  the  will  of 
man,  which  caufe  effectually  and  certainly  operates  to 
lead  him  to  repentance,  or  to  an  ''  exercife  in  one  certain 
*'  way  only.'^     How  thefe  things  can  be  reconciled   with 

1  i''  the 

*  P.  244.  t  P-  85.   X  P.  86.    i|  P.  22.   §  P.   231. 


241  Di'  Os fcheme cfinjldcredy 

the  Doctor's  avowed  principles  of  liberty  and  moral  agci* 
cy,  is  hard  to  be  conceived. 

Nor  was  it  through  inattention,  that  the  Doctor  helvi 
an  extrinlic  caufe  certainly  operating  on  the  minds  of  men. 
It  is  a  doctrine  elTential  and  important  in  his  fcheme,  that 
all  the  damned  will  be  finally  and  certainly  brought  to  re- 
pentance, and  brought  to  repentance  by  the  torments  of 
hell  too.  Are  not  thofe  torments  a  caufe  extrinfic  to  the 
human  will?  If  that  caufe  be  certainly  effeclual  to  lead  the 
damned  to  repentance^  what,  on  the  Doclor's  plan,  becomes 
of  their  moral  agency  ?  If  that  caufe  be  not  certainly  ef- 
fectual to  lead  them  all  to  repentance  ;  it  is  not  certain  that 
all  men  will  be  faved So  that  on  the  plan  of  the  Doc- 
tor's book,  either  his  grand  doclrine  of  the  final  certain 
falvation  of  all  men,  by  a  difciplinary  punifhment,  mud  be 
given  up,  or  it  muft  be  fuppofed,  that  all  who  are  in  that 
way  faved,  are  diveiled  of  their  moral  agency  and  are  re- 
duced to  mere  machines. 

Indeed  if  the  falvation  of  all  men  be  certain,  and  it  be 
certain  that  all  men  v/ill  repent ;  it  is  by  fome  caufe  or 
other  made  certain.  That  which  is  how  a  certam  futurity , 
was  a  certain  futurity  from  the  beginning  ;  yea  fr©m  eter- 
nity. As  it  is  now  a  certain  futurity,  that  Chriit  will  come 
to  iudoment,  fo  it  was  certain  from  the  bepinninp-.  There- 
fore  if  it  be  now  a  certain  futurity,  that  all  men  will  re- 
pent and  be  faved,  it  was  a  certain  futurity  from  the  be- 
ginning ;  and  that  certainty  was  efrabiiihed  by  fome  caufe  : 
and  that  caufe  muft  have  been  extrinfic  to  the  wills  of 
men  ;  becaufe  both  the  certainty  and  the  caufe  of  it  ex- 
ited before  the  cxiitenceof  men  or  their  v/ills. — So  that 
if  it  be  a  real  and  certain  truth,  that  all  men  will  be  faved, 
to  prove  which.  Dr.  C.  wrote  his  whole  book,  it  is  equal- 
ly certain  on  his  plan,  that  all  men  are  diveiled  of  their 
moral  agency. 

Should  it  be  flill  pleaded,  that  this  certainty  of  the  fal- 
vation of  all  men,  is  not  efiecced  by  any  caufe  extrinfic  to 
the  wills  of  thofe,  who  arc  to  be  laved,  but  by  their  wills 
themfelves  ;  the  abfurdity  of  this  fuppofition  mull  be  gla- 
ring to  every  man  on  the  flighteit  relieclion.  A  great  part 
of  thole  who  arc  to  be  i'avcd,  are  not  as  yet  in  exiftence  : 
and  it  will  not  be  pretended  that  their  wills  can  have  pro- 
duced an  cffecl:,  or  eflablilhed  a  certainty,  before  they 
^xift.     And  doubtlefsDr.  C.  and  other  univerfalifts  would 

allow. 


^ifh  reference  to  his  Ideas  of  human  liberty.  243 

allow,  that  the  falvation  of  thofe  who  are  in  exiftence, 
was  as  certain  before  tl^ir  exiflence,  as  the  falvation  of 
thofe  is^  who  are  in  future  to  come  into  exiftence.  But 
chat  certainty  could  not,  for  the  reafon  already  mentioned, 
jbe  the  effefl  of  any  exertion  of  their  own  wills. 

Beside  ;  if  it  were  not  for  this  abfurdity,  a  certainty 
eflabliflied  by  the  will  of  man  with  refpedl  to  the  will  it- 
{t\^,  as  efieclually  binds  that  will,  and  is  equally  incorfifl- 
ent  with  its  liberty,  as  if  that  certainty  were  cftablilhed 
by  any  other  caufe.  Suppofe  the  will  of  any  man  iball 
eflablilh  in  itfelf  a  certain  and  unfaiUng  bias  to  any  particu- 
lar adion  or  feries  of  aclions  ;  it  cannot  be  pretended  that 
this  fixed  bias  already  ellablifhed,  is  any  more  confident 
<with  liberty  and  moral  agcnc)'^,  in  the  man  in  whom  the 
bias  exiits,  than  if  it  had  been  eftabliflied  by  any  other 
caufe.  If  a  man  were  to  cut  off  his  own  leg,  though  he 
snight  be  more  blamable  for  the  ad;  of  cutting  it  off,  than 
lie  would  be  for  the  fame  aft  performed  by  another  ;  yet 
the  effeft,  as  to  his  fubfequent  inabihty  to  walk,  would  be  > 
the  very  fame. 

Therefore  whatever  be  the  caufe  of  the  certainty  and 
fixed  futurity  of  the  repentance  and  falvation  of  all  men  ; 
the  do6lrine  of  the  certain  falvation  of  all  men,  is  on  Dr. 
C's  plan  of  liberty,  wholi}''  inconfiftent  with  human  liber- 
ty, and  implies  that  all  men  are,  and  ever  have  been,  mere 
-anachines. 

In  vain  does  Dr.  C.  endeavour  to  relieve  this  difficulty, 
hy  obferving  in  various  paffages,  as  in  one  of  the  quota- 
tions above.  That  this  repentance  is  brought  about  ^*  in 
*'  a  moral  way,  fuch  an  one  as  isadjufled  to  moral  agents. '* 
For  he  ha^told  us  that  fuch  exertions  of  the  Deity,  as 
fhall  be  certainly  effe^ual  to  reftrain  free  agents  from  per- 
verting their  faculties,  and  fuch  an  influence  of  any  ex- 
trinfic  power,  'motives  or  whatever,  as  fliall  unavoidably- 
put  their  faculties  into  exercife  in  one  way  only,  iire  not 
adjufted  to  moral  sgents  ;  but  are  inconfillent  Vv-ith  iheir 
proper  powers.  Therefore,  according  to  the  Doctor,  it  ' 
is  not  in  the  power  of  the  Deity  himfelf,  certainly  and  in- 
fallibly to  lead  all  men,  in  a  moral  way,  to  repentance.  It 
is  a  diredl  contradiftion.  And  though  he  obferves,*  That 
that  being  who  is  infinitely  perfeft  will  be  able,  in  a  moral 
way,  finally  to  counteract  human  obftinacy  ;  he  is  utterly 

iiiiflaken, 
^'  P.    167. 


144  ^^'   ^^-^  fcheine  conjidered 

miflaken,  if  there  be  any  truth  in  his  idea  of  liberty.  If 
God  were  to  overcome  hunmn  oblbnacy,  an  extriniic  caufe 
would  effeftually  and  certidnly  incline  the  human  faculties 
to  an  exercife  in  one  way  ;  which  the  Dodlor  fays  is  incon- 
nUent  with  moral  agency. 

The  Doctor  tells  U5;,f  that  to  ''  reprefent  hell  to  the 
'•'  view  of  ilnners  in  fuch  a  linking  light,  as  that  they  Ihould 
''  be  irrefifliibly  liopped  in  their  wicked  purfuits,  v>^ould 
''  not  comport  with  their  free  agency."  Yet  he  fuppofes, 
that  to  be  in  hell,  and  to  feel  its  torments  fo  ftrikingly  as 
to  be  certainly  and  i}ifuil:!>Iy  {[op]yed  in  wicked  purfuits,  and 
thus  to  be  brought  to  repentance,  is  to  be  brought  to  re- 
pentance in  a  moral  v/ay,  entirely  comporting  with  J&:ee 
agency. 

Ui'ON' Dr.  C's  plan  of  liberty,  there  not  only  is  not, 
and  cannot  be,  any  certainty,  that  all  men  will  be  faved  ; 
but  there  is  nor,  and  cannot  be,  any  certainty  that  any 
fiwf  man  will  be  faved.  The  Divine  Beino-  himfelf  cannot 
make  it  certain,  without  deflroying  moral  agency.  Not 
any  of  the  promifes  of  the  gofpel  give  us  aiTurance  of  the 
falvation  of  any  man  :  nor  is  it  in  the  power  of  God  to 
give  a  promife  of  falvation  which  fhall  infure  the  event,  fo 
long  as  men  remain  moral  agents.  Therefore  it  was  to  no 
purpofe  that  Dr.  C.  quoted  fo  many  promifes  and  fcrip- 
tural  declarations  to  prove  the  falvation  of  all  men. 

On  the  fame  hypotheiis  concerning  liberty,  even  though 
all  men  were  delivered  from  hell  and  admitted  to  heaven, 
there  would  be  no  certainty  that  they  would  continue 
there.  They  would  be  conftantly  liable  to  fm  anew,  and 
hnn(.r  on  themfclves  a  fecond  damnation.  To  deny  this, 
would  be,  to  allow  that  their  faculties  inight  confiflently 
with  moral  agency,  be  certainly  and  ^jce*^/)/  inclined,  to 
''  exercife  themfelves  in  one  way  only.'^ 

TiiAT  the  inhabitants  of  heaven  are  liable  to  fin  and 
damnation,  is  actually  allowed  by  honel-t  Billiop  Newton. 
*^  This  life  is  indeed  a  llatr  of  trial,  J  but  not  a  trial  to  fix 
"  our  fate  forever,  without  any  poffibility  of  changing 
*'  for  better  or  for  worfc,  in  the  world  to  come.  For  if 
*'  the  righteous  can  be  but  righteous,  and  the  wicked  can 
*'  be  but  wicked,  and  Cannot  act  otherwife  ;  there  is  an 
*'  utter  end  of  all  freedom  of  will  and  morality  of  aftion. 

''  Their 

t  P.   34.4,  2^5'   t  Se^  Ncwlon's  works,  voL  VI.  p.  361. 


'With  reference  to  his  ideas  nf  hianaji  Uheriy,         245 

*'  Their  virtue  ceafes  to  be  virtue,  and  their  finis  no  longer 

^<  fin.'' "  The  fcripture  ^alTures  us,    that  in  the  next 

*^  hfe  ii:ien  will  be  made  (Luke  XX.  36.)  equal  unto  the 
'^  angels  ;  but  aneels,  we  know,  have  apoilatizcd  and 
^^  and  fallen  ;    and  why  may  not  men,  even    when  made 

'^  equal    unto   the  angels  ? If  righteoufnefs  f    fliould 

*^  degenerate  and  become  wickedneis  ;  or  if  Vy-ickednefs 
**  fhould  amend  and  become  righteoufnefs;  the  tables 
*'  would  then  be  turned,  and  wdth  the  change  of  their 
**  nature,  their  ftate  and  condition  would  be  changed  too." 
How  then  is  it  certain  that  all  men  will  be  finally  holy  and 
happy  ?  It  neither  is,  nor  can  poiUbly  be  certain  ;  be- 
caufe  certainty  in  this  cafe  would  imply  that  ^'  the 
*'■  righteous  can  be  but  righteous;"  and  fo  ^'  there  would 
^'  be  an  utter  end  of  all  freedom  of  will  and  morality  of 
"  adion." 

What  then  becomes  of  the  bcaftcd  evidence  of  the 
final  falvation  of  all  men  ?  There  is  no  certain  evidence 
of  it.  There  is  not,  nor  can  be,  on  this  fcheme  of  liber- 
ty, any  certain  evidence  but  that  all  men  will  finally  apof- 
tatize,  and  of  courfe  be  doomed  to  mifery  correfpondentto 
their  wickedncfs. 

It  is  true,  the  Biiliop  abundantly  contradicl:s  this  fenti- 
ment  concerning  liberty,  and  holds  that  the  damned  miufi: 
repent,  and  cannot  but  repent,  as  in  the  following  paiTa- 
ges  ;  '^  It  is  jmpoffihlc  for  any  creature  to  live    in  eternal 

*'   torments If  nothing  elfe  yet  his  own  fenfations  and 

*^  feelings  mufi  bring  him  one  time  or  other,  to  an  ac- 
''  knowledgement  of  his  fin  and  of  his  duty.'' J — **  The 
'^  fire  miffi:  in  time  purge  av/ay  and  confume  the  drofs  and 
*'  leave  o^nly  the  gold  behind.  No  creature  can  he  {o  totally 
'^  depraved  and  abandoned,  as  to  holdoutunder  the  mod 
^^  exquifite  tortures,  obfiiinateand  obdurate  to  all  eternity. 

*' In  ihort,  if  they  have  any  {cn^e.  or  feeling,  any  rea- 

^^  fon*  or  underfi:anding,  any  choice  or  free-will,  they  rmift 
'^  one  time  or  other,  Iboner  or  later,  he  brought  to  repent- 
'^  ance.''^\  *'  Tortures  upon  tortures,  tortures  without 
**  end,  no  creatures  of  the  leafl:  fenfe  or  feeling  can  fup- 
<*  p'jrt  ;  hut  jvuj?  all  be  brought  to  fuhm'ijjion  at  lad  :  and 
*<■  they  had  much  better  make  a  virtue  of  necefflty^-^j — 
Virtue  then   is   confident   with   necefiity.     Hov/    is    this 

idea 

*  P.  362.   t  P-   3<^o-   X  ^'   3^2.   li  P.   364.  j  P.  366. 


44-  EvcrlnJJing,  forever ^  forever  tend  evsr^ 

idea  confident  with  what  has  been  before  quoted  from  this 
fame  authqr  ?  But  inconfillence  and  felf  co>itradidion  re- 
lieve no  difficulty. 

From  the  fame  h^^pothefis  it  follov/s  tliat  God  himfelf 
does  not  and  cannot  poihbly  govern  mankind  with  certain- 
ty; that  there  is  no  foundation  to  pray  for  any  event 
whicli  depends  on  the  volitions  of  our  own  minds,  or 
thofe  of  other  men  ;  that  there  is  no  crround  for  confidence 
in  the  divine  providence  ;  and  that  it  is  impoffible  that  any 
future  free  adion$  of  men,  or  any  events  depending  oa 
thofe  actions,  fhould  be  certainly  foretold,  or  even  fore- 
known by  God  himfelf  ;  becaufe  what  is  abfolutely  un- 
certain, caiuiot  be  certainly  known,  and  what  is  certainly 
known  is  certainly  fined  and  determined.  Ijut  it  is  not 
con*i(l:ent  with  my  defign  to  enlarge  on  the  endljfs  atfurd- 
ities  of  thisTcheme  of  human  liberty,  abfurditi':s  from 
which,  though  long  hnce  poinded  out  to  belong  to  that 
fcheme,  the  ablell  advocates  for  it,  have  not  been  ablc^ 
and  it  is  prefumed  never  v/ill  he  able,  to  clear  it. 


CHAP.    XIV. 

^A  rH-ly  to   Dr,    C's  anpwsrs  to  the  argtimeitts  in  favour  of 
endlrfs  p'unlfhment,  drawn  from  thofe  texts,  "jjhich  declare 

,   ihs  punrfhmtnt  of  the   damned  to  be  everlailing,  forever, 
forever  and  ever,  and  the  fire  ^f  hell  to  be  unquenchable , 

DOCTOR  C.  fays,*  that  the  mifery  of  the  damned  is 
faid  to  be  eternal  or  rjsrlafting,  in  five  texts  only  in 
all  the  New  Teftament.  Whatever  was  intended  by  this 
ambiguous  propofition,  the  facl  doubtlefs  is,  that  many  oi 
his  readers  have  been  grolily  deceived  by  it,  as  they  have 
been  led  to  believe,  that  the  dodrine  of  endlefs  punifiiment 
is  apparently  taught,  in  no  more  than  five  texts  in  all  the 
New  Tcftament ;  or  that  no  more  than  five  texts  can  be 
produced,  the  words  of  which  feem  to  import  an  endlefs 
punifiiment^  Whereas,  all  that  Dr.  C.  or  any  man  can 
pretend  is,  that  the  puaiihment  of  the  damned  is  in  five 

texts 
*  P.  258. 


^f/r«  endlefs  duratioic.  2.47j 

«cxti  orily,  in  the  New  Teftament,  aiTerted  to  be  eterna!^ 
by  the  ufe  of  the  adjective  «/«?/«,-,  commonly  traniiatcd 
tternal  or  ivsrlafting.  It  cannot  be  pretended,  but  that 
the  texts  in  which  the  punishment  of  the  damned  is  in  Tome 
manner  or  other  declared  to  be  eternal,  and  in  words  as 
determinate,  as  the  adj«aive,  *«v.o?,  eternal,  far  exceed 
the  xvMTahtv  five.  The  live  texts  now  referred  to^  do  not 
comprife  itny  of  thofe,  in  which  the  damned  are  laid  to  be 
punifned  forever,  forever  and  ever  ;  to  be  punifhed  by  a 
worm  that  dieth  not,  and  a  £re  that  is  net  quenched  ;  to 
be  confined  by  an  impalTable  gulf ;  to  be  (liut  out  from  the 
iingdo.n  cf  heaven;   not  to  fee  life,  &c.  &c.   occ. 

Nov.-  \^harfoilov/3  from  this  circumilance,  tiiat  the  pu- 
niihmen:  of  the  damned  is  in  five  texts  only,  in  the  New- 
Teilament,  declared  to  be  eternal,  by  the  application  of 
the  Greek  adjective,  »:iu>uti  ?  It  may  ftiil  be  declared  to  be 
eternal,  by  other  v/ords  equally  determinate,  in  above  five 
hundred  texts. 

Or  if  there  wsre  no  other  texts,  cxpreifing  in  other 
words,  endlefs  puniihment ;  are  not  five  divine  alTevera- 
tions  of  any  truth,  fufficient  to  bind  our  faith  ?  If  five  be 
Xiot  fuiTxient  for  this  end,  neither  are  five  thoufand. 

Besides;  al!  that  Dr  C.  fays  on  this  head,  may  be 
jufdy  retorted  ;  and  if  his  obfervations  in  paae  259,  260, 
be  of  any  force  to  ihow,  that  the  dodrine  of  endlefs  pu- 
nifnment  is  not  taught  in  the  fcriptures  ;  jufk  as  forcibly 
may  it  be  proved,  that  the  damned  v/illnot  be  punifiied  for 
an  apre.  SuppoiinG:,  as  Dr.  C.  does,  that  the  words 
*i/«v,  «/<vy/cf,  &c.  do  not  mean  an  endlefs  duration,  but  ttie 
duration  of  an  age  ;  I  might  fay,  ''  The  mifery  of  the 
**  wicked  is  faid  to  be  for  an  age^  in  only  five  texts,  in  all 
'*  in  all  the  New  Teltanaent  :  Upon  v.hich  I  cannot  help 
**  making  a  paufe  to  exprefs  my  furprize  to  find  the  facred 
*'  wrijters  fo  very  fparing  in  the  ufe  of  this  word  age,  as 
*^  referring  to  future  torments.  It  is  ufed  but  three  times 
*'  by  Matthew  ;  but  once  by  Mark ;  but  once  by  Paul ; 
^'  and  not  once  by  the  other  v.riters  of  the  Nev/  Tefla- 
*^  ment.  All  which  is  very  extraordinary,  if  it  be  a  doc- 
*'  trin£:  of  ChrilViunity,  that  the  wicked  are  tobepuniihed 

''  fir  an  &gc. And  the  omiffions  of  the  facred  writers 

'■'  upon  this  head,  are  a  Ifrong  prefumptive  argument, 
^'-  that  they  knew  nothing  of  this  doarine,  which  has  been 
i'  fo  reheaicatly  pleaded  for  in  thefs  latter  days,-'  by  Dr. 

C.  and 


248  Everlajllngy  forever j  forever  and  ever] 

C.  and  fome  others.  Tlierefore,  whenever  it  fliall  be 
proved,  that  notwithftanding  the  rare  ule  of  the  word  age, 
with  a  reference  to  the  pnniihment  of  the  wicked,  that 
punilhment  will  really  laft  for  an  age  ;  it  is  prefiimed,  that 
it  can  be  proved  from  the  lame  topics,  that  it  will  laffc  witk-^ 

out   end. If  a   word,    iignifying  an   age,   applied   five 

times  to  future  punilhment,  prove  that  punifhment  to  con- 
tinue for  an  age  ;  why  will  not  a  word  iignifying  an  end- 
lefs  duration,  applied  five  times  to  that  punilhment,  prove 
it  to  be  without  end  ?  Nothing  therefore  can  be  concluded 
from  the  number  of  times,  a/«v;5c,  eternal,  is  applied  to 
future  puniflnnent.  The  whole  queftion,  in  thisftate  of  it, 
depends  on  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  ;  not  at  all  on 
the  frequency  of  its  ufe. 

T)k,  C.  fiiys,*  ''  That  «.'av  and  tf;a.'v/oj  may  fignify  a 
"  limited  duration ;-"  and  that  *'  from  this  remark  it  fol- 
**  lows,  that  the  preceding  evidence  in  favour  of  univer- 
*•'  ial  falvation,  remains  flrong  and  valid/'  It  is  acknow- 
ledgsd,  tj|atif  thofe  Vv'ords  may  iignify,  and  all  things  con- 
fidered,  do  as  probi.bly  Iignify,  a  limited,  as  an  unlimited 
duration,  when  applied  to  the  punifliment  of  the  wicked  ; 
nothing  either  for  or  againil:  endlelis  punifhment,  can  be 
concluded  from  the  ufe  of  thofe  words.  It  is  alfo,  on  the 
Time  luppofitions,  acknowledged,  that  by  that  application  of 
thofe  words,  the  evidence  which  Dr.  C.  has  exhibited  in 
favour  of  the  falvation  of  all  men,  is  not  at  ail  impaired. 
But  it  is  not  granted,  .that  thofe  words,  when  applied  to 
r.\\Q  punilhment  of  the  wicked,  do  as  probably  fignify  a 
limited  as  unhmited  duration.  Nor  is  it  granted  that  Dr. 
C's  evidence  of  univerfal  falvation  is  vahd.  Though  we 
ihoald  grant  that  it  remains  uninipaired  by  the  words  «>«ir 
and  *.:.v;oc,  eternity  and  eternal;  yet  it  may  be  utterly 
invalidated  by  other  confiderations  :  and  that  this  is  in  fad 
the  cafe,  I  have  endeavoured  already,  and  fnali  further  en- 
deavour to  fliovv  ;  how  fuccefsfully,  is' fubmitted  to  the 
reader. 

Ti^E  Doctor  manifeRly  argues,  on  this  head  from  pof- 
fi[)ility  to  probability,  and  even  to  faft.  He  fays,t  -'  If 
«  «<;6v,of  fyiciy  fignify  a  period  of  time  only,  there  is  not  a 
•'  /hadow  of  an  interference  between  its  connexion  with 
*'  the  punilhment  of  wicked  men,  and  their  being  finally 
*'  idwec  y  i.   e.  If  it  may  pollibly  fignify  a  period  of  time 

only, 

♦  P.    260.      t  P.   261. 


^tan  endkfi  durathn.  24^ 

©nly,  it  is  abfolutely  certain,  that  when  it  is  applied  to  fu- 
ture punifhmtmt,  it  does  lignity  a  period  of  time  only. 
7'he  inconcluiivenels  of  fuch  argumentation  rauil  be  mani- 
fefJ:  to  every  reader.  In  the  fame  manner  it  is  eafy  to 
prove,  *'  that  there  is  not  the  fliadow  of  an  interference 
<^  between  the  connection  of  «/«y/oj,  eternal,'*  with  the 
life  and  happlnefs  of  the  righteous,   and  their  final  damna- 

tion. 

The  Dbftof*  fays,  '' Thefe  words,  «.'«v    and  «/«vf?c  ar^ 

<'  evidently  more  loofe  and  general  in  their  meaning,  than 
"  the  Englifh  words  eternity ^  everlajt'in^ — If  it  were  not  lb, 
'^  how  comes  it  to  pafs,  that  ^^^i-and  a.^y^i;  will  not  alvvays 
*'  bear  being  tranflated  eternity,  everlafting?"  By,  the 
fame  argument  it  may  be  proved,  thar  the  Vvords  eternity 
and  everlaj}'ing  in  our  language,  are  more  loofe  and  gene- 
ral in  their  meaning,  than  the  Greek  «»^v  and  «;«'/.';:.  Vv^e 
frequently  fay,  fuch  a  man  is  an  everlafting  talker,  or  he 
talks  eternally ;  he  is  eternally  flandering  and  quarreilmg 
with  his  neighbours.  Bat  according  to  Dr.  C's  fenle  of 
the  Greek  words  •'-.a;v  and  a^tv/c,  the  Engliih  phrafes  juil 
mentioned  cannot  be  properly  tranflated,  by  the  ufe  of 
thofe  Greek '  words.  The  Doctor  fays,  they  properly- 
mean  the  duration  of  an  age.  But  when  it  is  faid,  a  man 
talks  eternally,   the    meaning  is   not,   that  he  talks  for  att 

age. The  truth  is,   there    are  idioms  in   all   languages, 

which  will  not  bear  a  literal    trandation    into    any    other 

language. The  circumftance  that  "-.f  v,  *L:u,i.f.i,  will  not 

always  bear  to  be  rendered  eternity  and  eternal,  no  more 
proves,  that  they  do  not  properly  lignify  the  lame 
with  our  words  eternity  and  eternal,  than  the  circumftance 
that  they^vill  not  alwa^/s  bear  to  be  rendered  an  age,  and 
during  an  age,  proves  that  they  do  not  properly  lignify 
the  duration  of  an  age.  It  is  faid,  P.om.  XVI.  26.  *'  Ac- 
*' cording  to  the  commandment  of  the  ever hfiing  God,  a:ccvnu 
0:-ot/  ;*'  but  no  man  would  render  this,  according  to  the 
commandment  of  the  God  -who  lives  for  an  ^ge. 

The  Doctor  thinks  that  *^  before  eternal  times  isanimpro- 
^^  priety  in  Englifh,'' and  hence  infers,  that  rco  Xpcy«v  A/a-v.-av 
Tit.  I.  2,  means  a  limited  duration.  It  is  prefumed, 
that  the  Do:ror  would  not  have  objected  to  the  propriety 
of  expreflinp-  a  prober  eternity,  by  faving*,  Frort  eternity, 
from  everlaJHng,  from  etarnal  ages.     Yet  in   reality  there 

*  P-  261.  Kk 


^50  EverJafrmgy  forever ^  forever  and  ever, 

is  as  great  an  impropriety  in  thefe  exprefPions,  as  in  thaf 
which  the  Doctor  pronounces  an  impropriety.  tJnderfto'od 
ftridly  and  literally  they  imply,  that  there  is  a  point  at 
which  eternity  began,  and  from  eternity  is  from  that  point. 
The  very  nle  of  the  prepoiition/rom  implies  this.  It  im- 
plies, that  the  computation  is  made  jrom  fomething,  at 
which  eternity  began.  This  fomething  muft  ftr icily  be 
fome  time,  or  fome  point  in  endlefs  duration.  So  that 
fr'j.n  eternity  taken  ftridly,  is  as  real  and  as  great  an  im- 
propriety as  before  eternity  or  before  eternal  times.  The 
fame  is  obfervable  of  to  eternity.  Yttfrum  eternity  and 
to  eternity y  are  in  fad:  ufed  among  us  to  exprefs  an  abfo- 
lute  eternity  ;  and  how  does  it  appear  abfurd,  that  the 
apolile  fhould  exprefs  the  fame  idea  by  a  phrafe,  in  which 
no  greater  impropriety  is  naturally  im^plied,  and  which  may 
as  well,  and  in  the  fame  way,  as  the  phrafe s />"6777  eternity 
and  t'j  eitrnityy  be  made  properly  to  fignify  an  abfolute  e- 
ternity  >  The  impropriety  fuppofed  to  be  in  the  expref* 
fion,  Before  eternal  times,  is,  that  it  implies  a  beginning 
to  eternity.  The  fume  is  implied  in  the  expreffion  from 
eternity.'  and  in  the  phrafe  to  eternity  it  is  implied  that  there 
is  an  end  to  eternity.  But  I  mean  not  to  infill  on  this  :  I 
do  but  jufl  mention  it,  to  fhow,  that  Dr.  C's  mod:  fa- 
vourite proof,  that  «.&v-cf  means  a  temporary  duration, 
is  Hot  demonflrative. 

Thffc  Doctor  further  obferves,*  '*  The  particles  tli  and 
<(  «,T5-:«.:*,  are  fo'uetinies  added  in  the  Septuagint,  to  the 
''  word  tti(,:v.  Whereas,  fl;'.ould  we  add  the  Englifh  words 
*'  anfv/erable  to  thofe  Greek  particles,  to  the  term  eter^ 
''  nity,  it  would  make  evident  nonfenfe.''^  The  Dodor 
was  miftaken  :  we  do  fay  forever77/crf ,  forever  and  ever, 
forever  and/or  aye.  Yet  no  man  will  h^nce  infer,  thatin 
our  language  the  words  forever  do  not  properly  mean 
an  endlefs  duration,  or  thtit  ferever  and  ever  implies  an  ad- 
dition to  eternity. 

Doctor.  C.  infifcs, f  that  '*  ^ic-y  and  a/«v>of  fignify  no- 
''  nothing  more  than  an  age,  difpenfation,  -period  of  conti- 
''  nuance,  either  longer  or  fl.'crter  ;''  That  ^*  it  is  cer- 
**  tain,  this  is  the  fenfe  in  which  they  are  commonly, 
*'  if  not  always  ufed  in  the  facred  pages  ;''  That  this  is 
*^ ,  the  frequent  and  almoil  perpetual  ufe  of  the  v/ords — 
'•  in  the  facred  v/ritings.''     It   is   by  no  means  granted, 

nor 

*"  P.   263.     f  P.  264  and  267. 


mean  cndlefs  duration.  251 

Bor  has  the  Doftor  made  it  evident,  that  this  is  almoil: 
the  perpetual  ufc  of  thofe  words,  efpecially  in  tlie  New 
Teftament.  A/ay  reckoning  the  reduplications  of  it,  as 
*t  a.,cdvt;  'icit  ct.,uMo>v^  to  be  but  ifngle  inilances  of  its  ufe,  oc- 
curs in  the  New  Teilament  in  one  hundred  an^d  four  in— 
^ftances  ;  in  thirty-tv/o  of  which;,  it  means  a  temporary  du- 
ration.* In  feven,  it  may  be  taken  in  either  the  tenipo- 
rary  or  cndlefs  fenfe.f  In  Ijxty-five,  including  ux  inftan- 
ces  in  which  it  is  appHcd  to  future  punifhraent,  it  plainly 
fignifies  an  endlefs  duration,:!:  Kow  then  could  Dr.  C. 
fay,  that  it  is  cnmmor.iy  if  not  (ikvays  ufed  in  the  facred 
pages,  to  Tignify  an  age  or  difpenfation  only  ?  and  that 
this  is  alniojt  the  perpetual  ufe  of  it  t 

But  if  <t^u:  ufed  abfolutely  did  generally  Hgnify  a  mere 
temporary  duration  ;  it  would  not  thence  follow,  that  it 
has  the  fame  reitrid;ed  llgniiication,  when  governed  by 
the   prepoiition   »';•     It  is  never  applied  to  future  puniih- 

ment, 

*  The  places  arc,  Matt.  XII.  32.  XIII.  22,  39,  40, 
49.  XXIV.  3.  XXVIII.  20.  Mark  IV.  19,  Luke  I.  70. 
XVI.  8.  XX.  34,  1^^.  ka.%  III.  %i.  Rom.  XIL  2. 
I  Cor.  I.  20.  II.  6,  tv/ice,  7,  8.  Ill,  18.  X.  11,  2  Cor. 
IV.  4.   Gal.  I.  4.  Eph.  I.  21.   II.  2.  VI.  12.    I  Tim.  VI. 

17.  2  Tim.  l\.  10.  Tit.  II.  12.  Heb.  I.  2.  IX.  26. 
XI.  3. 

't  The  places  are,  Mark  X.  30.  Luke  XVIII.  30, 
John  IX.  32.  Eph.  II.  7.  III.  9.  Col.  I.  26.  Heb. 
VI.  5. 

%  The  places  arc  as  follows  ;  Matt.  VI.  13 .  XXL  19.  Mark 
XI.14.  LnkeL33,55.JohnIV.  14,  VI.  51,  58.  ViiL's^;, 
twice,  ^i,  52;  X.  28.  XL  26.  XIL  34.  XIII.  8.  XIV.  16. 
Afts  XV.  18.  Rom  I.  25.  IX.  5.  XI.  36.XVL  2-'.  i  Cor. 
VIII.  13.  2  Cor.  IX.-9.  XI.  31.  Gal.  1.  5.  Eph.  IIL* 
11,21.   Phil.   IV.   20.   I  Tim.l.  [7,  tv/ice,  2  Tim.   iV. 

18.  Heb.  1.  8.  V.  6.  VI.  20,  VIL  17,  21,  24,  28. 
XIII.  8,  21.  I  Pet.  1.  23,  25.  IV.  II.  V.  II.  2  Pet. 
HI.  18.  I  John  11.  17.  2  Tohn  2.  P.ev.  1.  6,  iS.  IV.  o, 
10.  V.   13,    14.  VIL   12.  X.  6.  XL  15.  XV.  7.XXIL 

5 The  fix  tnftances  in  vjJnch   it  is  applied  to  future  pu- 

nifimerit,  arir,  Mark  IIL  29.  2  Pet.  IJ.  17.  lud.  n. 
Rev.  XIV,    II.   XIX.    3.  :\X.   10, 


252  'Everlafling^  forever,  forever  and  ever, 

nicnt,  but  in  this  conftructicn.  In  the  whole  New  Teila- 
ment,  it  is  ufed  in  this  roni^ruftion,  fixty-one  times,  in 
lix  of  which  it  is  appHed  to  iature  punilhriient.'*  That  in 
all  the  remaining  iifty-iive  it  is  ufed  in  the  endlefs  fenfe,  I 
appeal  to  the  reader.  If  in  thole  fifty-five  inftanccs  it  be 
ufed  in  tiis  endiels  fenfe  ;  this  lurely  is  a  ground  of  flrong 
prciumption,  that  in  the  fix  inflances^  in  which  it  is  ap- 
plied to  future  punilhment,   it  is  ufed  in  the  fame  fenfe. 

The  adjsctiv^e  «  e-.cf  is  Itill  more  unfavourable  to  Dr. 
C'sfyftem^  than  the  fubilantive  a/^v.  It  is  found  infeventy- 
one  places  in  the  whole  New  Teftament  ;  fixty-lix,  be- 
fide  the  iive  in  which  Dr.  C.  allows  it  is  applied  to  future 
punifjimcnt.f  In  every  one  of  the  nxty-fix  infcances.  ex- 
cept two,  2  Tim.  i.  9:  and  Tit.  1.  2  ;  it  may,  to  fay  the 
leaf!:,  be  underftocd  in  the  endlefs  fenfe.  If  befide  the 
two  inflances  juft  mentioned,  Rom.  XVI.  25.  Philem.  15. 
Heb.  VI.  2  ;  and  Jude  7,  Ihould  be  'pleaded,  which!' 
think  are  all  that  any  univerfalill  will  pretend  do  contain  a 

limited 

"^  hi  this  confi  ruction  it  is  found  in  ell  the  texts  mentioned 
in  the  hijl  marginal  note,  except  Acti  XV.  18.  Eph.  III. 
II,   21.   Once  in  i  71m.   I.    17,  and  2  Pet.   III.    18. 

I  have  been  thifs  particular  in  noting  all  the  texs,  in  ivhich 
«;«v  ocrtirs  in  the  Nem  Teftament,  that  the  reader  nray  ex- 
ar.vDie  the?:!  and  judge  for  himfelf^  ivhether  I  have  given  a  jvfl 
repreftntatton  of  the  ufe  of  that  ".vord  by  the  infpired  writers, 

t  The  places  are,  Matt.  XIX.  16,  .29.  XXV.  46. 
Mark  X.  17.  30.  Luke  X.  25.  XVI. "9.  XVill.  18, 
50.  John  III.  15.,  16,  36.  IV.  14,  36.  V.  24,  39.  VI^ 
27,  40,  47,  54, '68.  X."  28.  All.  25,  50.  XVII.' 2.  3. 
Ad-s  Xlii.  46,  48.  Roin.  II.  7.  V.  21.  VI.  22,  23. 
XVI.  25,  26.  2  Cor.  IV.  17.  i3.  v.- I.  Gal.  VI.  8. 
2l'hcfr.  II.  16.  I  lim.  I.  16.  VI.  12,  16,  19.  2  Tim. 
I.  9.  II.  10.  Tit.  I.  2,  twice.  III.  7.  Philem.  15. 
Heb.  V.  9.  VI.  2.  IX.  12,  14,  15.  XIII.  20.  I 
Pet.  V.    10.   2  Pet.  i.    II.     I  John    ).   2.    If.     25.     III. 

15.  V.    II,    13,   20.  Jud.    7,   21.    Rev.  XIV.  6 

Thefive  texts  in  which  Dr,  C.  allows  a'^<M'/o?  to  be  applied  te 
future  pimfhment  are,  Matt.  XVIll.  8.  XXV..  41,  46. 
Mark  111.  29.  a  ThelT.  I.  9.  To  -vjhkh  is  to  ke  added ^ 
Jude  7, 


mean  endlefs  duration.  75^5 

limited  fenfe  ;  itmaybe  obferved  concerning  Rom.  XVI.  25, 
that  y.ji^'lr.^tnv  Xo/oic  a.&<;;o/;  T*y  lyyiy.ivau  may,  With  at  Icaft  as 
great  truth  and  propriety,  be  rendered  ^^  myflery  kept 
*'  fecret  during  the  eternal  or  unlimited  pail  ages,  orfrora 
*'  eternity,''   as,    ^^  myftery   kept  iecret    fmce  the    world 

''  began." The  literal  conltruclion  of  Philem.  15,  26, 

is,  "  That  thou  mighteil  receive  him  eternal,  no  longer 
'^  as  a  fervant,  but  above  a  fervant,  a  brother  ;"  or  more 
briefly  thus  ;  "  That  thou  mighteil  receive  him  as  an 
**  eternal  brother.''  That  Onefmius  Vvas,  in  the  endlefs 
fenfe,  become  an  eternal  brother  to  Philemon^  and  that 
as  fuch  he  ought  to  be  received  by  Philemon,  cannot  be 
difp^jtcd;    provided    they   both  Vv-eie,   as   the  apoille   iup- 

pofed  them  to  be,  real  Chriilians. The  final  judgment 

intended  in  Heb.  Vi.   2,    may  with  the  fame^  propriety  be 
called  an  endlefs  judgment,   becaufe  it  refers  to  an  eiidiefs 
duration  to  foHow  ;   as  it   may  be  called   the  judgm.ent    0/ 
an  age  cr  dtfp^nfatkny  becaufe  it  refers  to  an  age  or    di\i'- 

pcnfation  v/hich   fliall    thei>  have  been  pall.-- As  to  the 

fire  fuffered  by  the  Sodomites,  if  the  text  mean  the  fire 
of  hp]I,  then  |ude  7,  is  to  be  added  to  the  five  texts,  in 
which  it  is  acknowledged  «.-«:'/o:  refers  to  future  puniih- 
inent.  If  it  mean  the  fire  in  which  they  and  their  city 
were  confumed  in  this  world,  it  can  be  called  eternal,  or 
*/'fv;o-,  withrefpe^-  to  the  eifecl  onl/  :  and  to  fay  that  this 
eiFetl  is  to  lafl  for  a  hmited  tim.^  only,  is  the  lame  as  to  fiiy, 
that  the  Sodomites  are  finally  to  be  faved  ;  which  is  to  beg 
the  grand  queflion. 

As  to  2  Tim.  1.  9,  and  Tit.  I.  2,  without  infifting  on 
what  has  been  obferved  in  page  249,  250,  if  i'.  fhouid  be 
granted,  that  in  thefe  two  mitances  «/«•••  oe  is  ufed  in  a  li- 
mited fenfe,  I  conceive  no  injury  would  reiult  to  the  doc- 
trine for  which  1  plead.  It  will  not  be  difputed  that  the 
words  eternal' znd  everlaffing  in  our  language,  are  fomjC- 
times  ufed  in  a  limited  fenfe  :  and  perhaps  no  book  written 
in  the  Englifh  language,  efpecially  written  by  fo  many  dif- 
ferent authors,  and  at  I'uch  diilant  times,  as  the  New  Tef- 
tament,  can  be  found,  in  Vvhich  the  word  eternal  is  ufed 
feventy  times,   and  not  twice  at  lead  in  ihe  limited  fenfe. 

As  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  et/^""/'?:  is  lo  much 
infilled  on  by  Dr.  C.  and  sshe  triumphs  in  the  idea,  that 
It  is  almofl .  perpetually,  by  the  facred  writers,  ufed  in 
the  Hmited  fenfe,  I  muil  beg  the  patience  of  the  reader, 

while 


/i^4  Kverlafl'ing,  forever ,  forevsr  and  ever,  ^ 

while  I  defcend  to  the  confideration  of  the  particular  texts, 
in  which  it  occurs.  In  fort3^-ibur  of  the  forementioned 
lixty-fix  texts,  «.«••/::  is  applied  to  the  future  life  of  the 
righteous,  and  therefore  is  ufed  in  the  endlefs  fenfe.  If 
this  be  not  allowed,  it  will  follow,  that  there  is  no  pro- 
niife^  no  feeurity  of  s.n  endlefs  life  to  the  righteous,  or  to 
any  of  mankind,  and  of  courfe  univerfal  faivation  muft  be 
given  up  ;  as  fiiall  be  more  particukrly  fhown  prefenily. 
In  Luke  XVI.  o,  it  is  applied  to  the  celeiHal  habitations 
of  the  righteous  :  in  2  Cor.  IV.  j;^  to  the  future  glory 
of  the  righteous :  in  2  Cor.  V.  i,  to  their  houfe  in  hea- 
ven :  in  2  TheiT.  II.  16,  to  their  confolaticn  :  in  2  Tim. 
II.  10,  to  their  future  glory  :  in  Kcb.  V.  9,  to  their  fai- 
vation :  in  Ileb.  iX.  15,  to  their  future  inheritance. 
That  in  theic  feven  inftances  it  is  ufed  in  the  endlefs  fenfe, 
\vill  doubtlefs  be  granted,  by  all  thcfe  who  allow  this  to 
be  the  fenfe  of  it  in  the  preceding  fcrtj-four.  in  Pleb.  1 X. 
22,  it  is  applied  to  the  redemption  of  Chrid  :  in  Heb. 
Xlll.  20,  to  the  covenant  of  grace  :  in  Rev.  XlV.  6, 
to  the  gofpel.  That  in  thefe  three  inftances,  it  is  ufed  in 
the  endlefs  fenfe,  it  is  prefumed,  there  can  be  no  difpute 
among  Chriftians.  The  fenfe  is  frill  more  determinate, 
when  it  is  applied  to  the  Deity  or  his  perfeftions,  as  it  is  to 
God  himfelf,  in  Rom.  XVI.  9:  to  the  divine  povrer,  in 
2  Tim.   VI,  16:  to  the  divine  glory,  in  i  Pet.  V.  10;    to 

the  Koly  Ghoft,    in  Heb.  IX.  14 In  2  Cor.  IV,  18,  it 

is  applied  to  things  unfeen,  as  oppofcd  to  things  feen  :  and 
to  fuppofe,  that  in  this  inftance  it  means  the  duration  of 
an  age  or  difpenfation  only,  would  dcftroy  all  oppofition 
between  things  feen  and  things  unfesn ;  bccaufe  many  of 
the  former  continue  for  an  age  or  difpenfation,  as  well  as 
the  latter.  The  bare  writiufr  of  this  pafTage,  fo  as  to  ex- 
prefs  a  limited  duration,  fumcicntly  confutes  that  fenfe  : 
thus,  *^  The  things  which  are  feen,  are  temporal  ;  but 
'^  the  things  which  are  unfeen,  continue  for  an  age  or  dif- 

^'  penfation.'*' In  2  Pet.  I.  11,   «irrvt.f,  is  applied  to  the 

kingdom  of  Chrilt.  I  am  aware,  that  the  believers  in 
Dr.  C^sbook,  will  hold,  that  in  this  inilance,  it  is  ufed 
in  the  limited  £erS(tf  becaufe  according  to  that  book,  the 
kingdom  of  Chrift  is  of  mere  temporary  continuance.  To 
aflert  this  however  is  a  mere  begging  of  a  quefliion  in  dif- 
putc.     Tkjt  tHis  kingdom  is  not  of  mere  temporary  con-- 

tinuance 


vie  an  endlefs  iuraimt,  *J5_J 

tinuance,  feme  reafons  have  been  urp-ed  to  fhow.*  How 
forceable  thofe  reafons  are,  is  fubai^itted  to  the  reader.-— 
Nov/  thefe  texts,  together  with  2  Tim.  I.  9.  Tit.  I.  2. 
Kom.  XVI.  25.  Philem.  i^.  Heb.  VI.  1,  and  Jude  7,whiGh 
were  before  confidercd,  m:ike  up  the  whole  fixty-lix. 

FoK.  the  truth  of  this  account  cf  the  ufe  of  «/&5»«cc  in  th© 
New  Teilament,  I  appeal  to  all  who  are  acquainted  with 
the  Greek  teflainenr,  or  are  capable  of  examining  it.  And 
if  «/f-  v«5f  be  ufcd  feventy  one  times  in  the  whole  ;  fixty- 
fix  times  befide  thofe  iiiiiiances,  in  which  it  is  allowed  to 
be  applied  to  future  punifiiment  :  and  if  in  all  thofe  fix- 
ty-lix  iuiiances,  except  two,  it  certainly  mean,  or  at  leall 
may  fairly  and  mcf^:  naturally  be  underftood  to  mean,  an 
endlefs  duration :  if  in  all,  except  {ii;.,  it  muft  ncceflarily 
be  underilood  in  the  endlefs  fenle;  what  are  we  hence  na— 
turally,  and  n;ay  I  not  fay,  necelTariiy,  led  to  conclude, 
concerning  thofe  inflances,  in  which  it  is  applied  to  the 
punifhnient  of  the  wicked  ?  Doubtlefs  that  in  thofe  inftan- 
ces  too  it  is  ufed  in  the  endlefs  fenfe. 

But  what  arc  we  to  think  of  Dr.  C's  faying,  that  this 
word  is,  in  the  {acred  pages,  moft  frequently  and  almoft 
perpetually  J  ufed  in  the  limited  fenfe  ?  With  all  his  parade 
of  Greek  learning,  and  oi  a  thorough  acquaintance  with 
the  Greek  teflament,  was  he  in  reality  fo  little  acquainted 
with  it,  as  to  fall  into  fuch  an  egregious  miilake?  If  it 
fhould  be  here  pleaded  in  defence  of  Dr.  C.  that  he  fup- 
pofed  «t./iiy-sj  to  be  "jfed  in  the  limited  fenfe,  in  all  thofe 
inftanccs  in  which  it  is  applied  to  the  future  hfe  of 
the  righteous  ;  and  that  on  this  iuppofition,  it  is  almoft 
perpetually  ufed  in  the  hmited  fenfe  :  it  may  be  obferved, 
that  Dr.  C.  did  m^tedfuppofe  this;  and  he  might  as  well 
hs-wtfiippofed,  that  the  fame  word  applied  to  future  punifh- 
ment  is  ufcd  in  the  limited  fenfe.  This  latter  fcppoiition 
would  have  been  no  more  a  begging  of  the  queftion  than 
the  former.      But  of  this  more  prefently. 

Dr.  C.f  thinks  ^^  it  is  evident  from  the  very  texts  that 
**  are  brought  to  prove  the  flritfi:  eternity  of  hell-tor— 
*^  ments,  that  they  contain  no  fuch  dodrine.'''  This  pro- 
pofition  is  fupported  by  the  following  coniiderations — That 
in  two  texts  the  word  vverlajring   is   applied  to  the  fire  of 

hell,  hot  to  the  punishment  or  mifery  of  t\iQ  wicked 

That  fire  in  its  own  nature  tends  to  an  end,  and  will  by 

the 

*  See  Chap.  XIL  P.  234,  &c.     f  P--272. 


S5^  i^verlaflwg,  forever,  forever  and  ever, 

the  laws  of  nature  necejTarily  in  time  come  to  an  end — — ^ 
Tiiat  fire  powerfully  tends,  to  bring  on  a  diiToluiion  of  thofs 
bodies  that  are  call  into  it. 

1.  That  the  word  everhfing  is  applied,  in  two  texts, 
to  the  frc,  not  to  the  pumfh?:itnt,  of  hell  ;  hence  the  E'oc* 
tor  infers,  in  words  which  he  quotes  with  approbation 
from  Nichol  Scoty  that  though  ^'  the  fire  be  without  end, 
*'  it  will  not  follow,  that  every  individual  lubject^  v/hich 
''  is  caft  into  it,  muft  be  fo  too.'**  Did  the  Doitor 
then  believe,  that  fome  of  the  fubjeils  of  heil-firc  >vili  not 
exiit  without  end,  but  will  be  annihilated  ^    This  ig  to  give 

up  tiie   falvation  of  all  men. Befides  ;   that  the   hie  of 

hell  will  be  kept  up  without  end,  and  therefore  eternal 
acres  after  all  the  fubi eels  /hall  be  either  annihilated  or  de- 
livered  out  of  it,  is  a  mere  conjeclure,  unfupported  by  any 
evidence  from  fcripture  or  reafon.  As  well  might  the 
Doflor  have  faid,  The  faints  will  indeed  be  received  to 
eyerlafcinp-  habitations  ;  the  habitations  will  be  flri^dy  with- 
out end  :  but  th.Q  Joints  will,  after  a  while,  be  ail  either 
annihilated  or  fent  to  hell. — What  if  the  word  everlaiting 
be  in  t-n'o  inilances  applied  to  the  j^r<?  of  hell  ?  In  other  in- 
fiances  it  is  appliedto  the pumfiment j  to  the  dejtrui^ton.  to  the 
fm')ke  of  ihc'.  torment y  and  to  the  torment  itfelf  of  the  damned. 

Rev.  XX.  10,^'  And"'  [they]  ^^  fiiall  be  torrasnted,  day  and 
'*  night,  forever  and  ever,'*  And  if,  v/hen  applied  to  the 
fire^  itprove  that  to  be  without  end,  doubilefs  when  applied 
to  the  p-jr.ifjmcnt ,  to  .the  dejhu^lon,  to  the  tor-ment,  it  e- 
qiu'illy  proves  them  to  be  without  end. 

2.  That  "■  fire  as  fuch  naturally  tends  to  an  end,  and 
'^  v.'iil,  in  time,"  by  the  laws  of  nature,'-*^  actually  come 
*'  to  an  end.''-]- — This,  like  many  other  of  Dr.  C's  argu- 
ments, if  it  prove  any  thing,  proves  too  much,  and  there- 
fore really  proves  nothing.  It  depends  on  this  very  falfe 
principle,  that  whatever,  according  to  the  lav/s  of  nature, 
eflabliilied  in  this  world,  would,  without  an  immediate  di- 
vine interpofition,  come  to  an  end,  will  certainly  come  to 
an  end  in  the  future  world.  Now  according  to  this  prin- 
ciple, all  the  bodies  of  both  fmners  and  faints,  in  the  fu- 
ture world,  as  v/ejl  as  this,  will  be  diilolved.  Nay,  as 
their  fouls  too  are  conllantly  upholden  in  exiilence  by  the 
agency  of  God,  and  would  in  their  own  nature  immedi- 
■Jiicly  ceafc  to  exifl:,  were  it  not  for  that  continued  agency ; 

it 
*  P.  272.  ,      -|-  P.  273. 


mean  encUefs  duration;  31^7 

it  follows,  according  to  the  principle  now  under  confide-, 
ration,  that  all  the  Ibuls  of  both  fmners  and  faints  will  ac- 
tually come  to  an  end,  in  the  future  world.  But  as  this 
confequence  will  be  rejected,  arid  as  it  will  be  granted, 
that  the  fouls  of  all  men  will,  by  the  agency  of  God,  be 
npholden  without  end  ;  fo  the  fair.e  agency  wUl  be  fui5ci- 
ent,  to  continue  the  lire  of  hell  without  end  ;  and  that 
y/hether  it  be  material  fire  or  not.  If  it  be  not  material 
fire,  it  does  not,  _ in  its  own  nature,  more  tend  to  an  end^ 
than  the  fouls  of  men,  or  the  faculties  of  thofe  fouls.  lif 
it  be  material  fire,  ftill  it  may,  as  was  juft  now  obferved, 
be  perpetuated  to  an  abfolute  eternity. 

If  tliis  argument  from  the  tendency  of  fire  to  an  end, 
be  of  any  force,  it  will  overthrow  Dr.  C's  fcheme,  equal- 
ly as  the  contrary.  For  it  is  equally  the  tendency  of  all 
the  fire,  of  which  we  have  any  experience,  to  come  to 
an  end,  in  a  fhort  time,  as  to  come  to  an  end  at  all.  No 
fire  in  this  v/orld  will,  without  new  fupplies  of  fuel,  bit  for 
ages  of  ages,  or  even  for  one  age.  But  with  a  proper 
fuppiy  of  fuel,  any  fire  may  be  kept  up  without  end.  If 
therefore  we  are  to  conclude,  that  the  fire  of  hell  will 
come  to  an  end,  becaufe  the  fire  of  which  we  have  know- 
ledge, will  without  a  new  and  ccnftant  fuppiy  of  fuel, 
com.e  to  an  end  ;  w^  are  aifo  to  conclude,  ihat  the  fire  of 
liell  will  come  to  an  end,  before  the  expiration  of  one  age. 

-Indeed  God  can  make  the  fire  of  hell  lafl  for  an  age  : 

and  he  can  witli  equal  eafe  make  itlafl;  without  end.  Nay, 
he  can  make  our  comm.on  fire  lafl  withoiat  end.  The  fame 
power  which  fhall  make  our  bodies  immortal,  can  make  our 
common  fire  ftriclly  eternal.  To  this  end  the  nature  of 
that  fire  n^eds  no  p-reater  alteration,  than  the  nature  of 
our  bodies  needs,  to  render  them  im.mortal. 

THEDoclor  informs'^  us,  that  he  ^^  fees  not  but  an  age, 
*^  diipenfation  or  period,  for  the  continuance  of  this  lire, 
'•  will  very  v/ell  anfwer  the  full  import  of  the  v/ord  ^.r.?-/  - 
^'  c;,  everlafiing  ;  efpecially,  if  we  fuppofe  this  age  to 
'^  laft  till  the  fire  has  accom.plifiied  the  end,  for  which  it 
'^  was  enkindled..": — —But  it  is  not  allowed  by  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  Doclor,  that  the  fire  v^'ill  ever  have  accom- 
plifhed  the  end,  for  which  it  v/as  enkindled  :  and  to  argue 
on  that  fuDDofition,  is  to  tnke  for  rranted,  what  is  a-;  mAich 
Jn  diipute,  as  any  fubjedl  of  this  whole  controverly. — k^^ 

L  1  adds, 

*  p.  274- 


25 S  Everlaflingy  forever,  forever  and  ever, 

adds, The  words  concerning  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  ''They 
''  are  fet  forth  for  an  example,  fuffering  the  vengeance 
*''  of  eternal  fire,"  *'  import  no  more  than  this,  that  this 
*'  fire  laiied  till  it  had  accompliflied  the  defign  of  heaven, 
<'  in  the  defti-uction  of  thofe  cities,  for  a  Handing  exam- 
''  pie  of  the  divine  vengeance'\  to  after  ages.  And  the 
fire  of  hell  is  *^  doubtlefs  called  everlafting  for  the  hke 
'*  reafon."  According  to  this  then,  the  word  everlaflingy 
&c,  applied  to  future  punifhment,  gives  no  evidence,  that 
that  punifliment  is  to  lail:  longer,  than  the  time,  during 
which  the  cities  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  were  in  confu- 
ming,  or  longer  than  one  day  :  and  the  flood  of  Noah,  as 
it  laited  till  it  had  accomplifhed  the  defign  of  heaven  in 
the  deiiru'5lion  of  the  old  world,  for  a  ftanding  pubhc  ex- 
ample of  the  divine  vengeance  to  after  ages,  was  an  eter- 
nal flood  :  The  deaths  of  Korah,  Daihan  and  Abiram,  of 
Nadab  and  Abihu,  of  Zimri  and  Cofbi,  &c,  &c,  were  for 
the  fame  reafons  dernp.1  deaths. — But  how  is  this  fenfe  of 
everhifting  confiiient  with  that  for  which  Dr.  C.  abundant- 
ly contends,  that  it  fignifies  the  duration  of  an  age  ?  And 
if  "  the  fire  of  hell  be  doubtlefs  called  everlafting,''  in 
the  former  fenfe,  how  does  it  appear,  that  it  ever  is,  or 
that  it  can  confiflently  be,  called  everlafling  in  the  latter 
fenfe  ? 

3,  '*  Fire  powerfully  tends  to  bring  on  a  folution  of 
*'  continuity,  in  thofe  bodies,  that  are  caft  into  it ;"  there- 
fore the  punifiiment  of  hell  is  not  endlefs.**  So  fire  tends 
to  brfncr  on  a  diifoiution  of  the  human  body  in  a  very  fhort 
time,  in  one  hour,  or  in  a  much  fliorter  time  :  therefore 
the  punifliment  of  hell  will  not  laft  for '  ages  of  ages,  or 
for  one  age,  or  even  for  one  day.  This  argument  is  juft 
as  conclulive,  as  that  now  quoted  from  Dr.  C.  He  who 
can  make  an  human  body  endure  the  fire  of  hell  for  an  age, 
can  make  it  endure  the  fame  fire,  for  an,endlefs  fucceflion 
of  ages.  Therefore  though  fire  does  powerfully  tend  to 
bring  on  a  difTolution  of  thofe  bodies,  which  are  caft  into  it, 
it  by  no  means  thence  follows,  either  that  fuch  diflblution 
will  be  effected  in  the  wicked  ;  or  that  their  torment  will 
ever  come  to  an  end. 

The 

-f-  Let  it  he  remembered,  that  Dr.  C.  is  a  hitter  enemy  to 
vindictive  ptmlfJmient, 
**   P.  276. 


msan  endlefs  duration,  259 

The  Doftor  proce8ds+  to  argue,  that  future  puniflir 
ment  will  not  be  endlefs,  becaufe  ^'  the  wicked  are  not 
'*  faid  to  live  always  in  tor?nent  ivithout  dying  ;  or  that  their 
<^  bodies  ihali  be  immortal,  or  incorruptible,  or  indifiblu- 
*'  ble :  but  that  they  fhali  reap  corruption,  be  dellroyed, 
"  perifh,  undergo  death.''  On  this  paiFage  it  may  be  re- 
marked, 

1.  That  by  dying,  corruption ,  drftru^ion,  perifiing,  the 
fecond  death,  he  evidently   means  fomething  different  from 

torment ;  as  he  fets  thofe  terms  in  oppofition  to  Lorment  or 
mifery.  Yet  he  tells  us  in  the  very  fame  page,  that  '^  the 
*^  fecond  death,  v/hich  wicked  men  iliall  pafs  through, 
'^  and  their  being  call  into  the  lake  of  fre,  mean — one 
*^  and  the  fame  thing.'*  In  other  parts  of  his  book^  he 
declares,  that  everlaliing  deftruction  evidently  means  mife- 
ry ^\\ — that  *'  the  being  cafl  into  the  furnace  of  fire,  v/here 
^^  there  ihall  be  wailing  and  gnalhing  of  teeth,  means  the 
*'  fame  thing,  in  the  facred  dialed:,  with  the  fecond 
'*  death,'* §— that  the  fcripture  expreiles  going  through 
the  torments  *'  of  hell,  by  being  hurt  of  the  fecond 
*^  death."* 

2.  If  by  death,  defiruSlion,  &c,  Dr.  C.  mean  any 
thing  different  from  the  torment  of  the  damned,  it  feems 
he  muft  mean,  either  annihilation,  or  a  dilTolution  of  the 
connection  of  the  fouls  and  bodies  of  the  damned,  and 
their  tranfition  from  the  ftate,  in  which  they  are  to  be  im- 
mediately after  this  life,  to  the  next  fucceeding  ftate.  if 
he  mean  the  former,  it  is  indeed  oppofed  to  their  endlefs 
mifery,  and  equally  oppofed  to  their  final  falvation.  If  he 
mean  a  tranfition  of  the  damned  to  fome  other  ftate,  this 
is  no  proi)f  againft  endlefs  mifery  ;  becaufe  the  Doctor 
liimfelf  fuppofes,  that  the  damned,  or  lome  of  them  at 
leaft,  will  pafs  through  feveral  fucceeding  ftates  of  mifery. 
And  let  them  pafs  through  ever  fo  many  fucceedmg  ftates, 
there  is  no  evidence  ariling  from  this  bare  tranfition,  that 
they  will  ever  be  faved.  So  that  let  the  Do6lor  mean,  in 
this  cafe,  v/hat  he  will,  by  death,  dejfruftion,  &c,  thofe  words 
are  either  not  at  all  oppofed  to  the  endlefs  mifery  of  the 
wicked,  or  they  are  equally  oppofed  to  their  endlefs  hap- 
pinefs.  Whether  they  do  mean  annihilation  or  not,  has 
been  already  conlidered  in  Chap.  V.  The  truth  undoubt- 
edly is,  what  Dr.  C.  hirnfelf  abundantly  holds,   though 

in 

iP.  277.     IIP.  224.     5  P.  210.        ?P.  337' 


<( 


a 

<< 


ado  Everlajlmgy  forever  .forever  mid  ever, 

in  writing  thispafTage,  he  feems  to  have  forgotten  it ;  tliat 
the  death,  deilrudion,  corruption,  fecond  death  of  the 
damned,  is  their  mifery  or  torment,  the  imoke  of  which 
fhall  afcend  forever  and  ever,  and  in  which  in  Rev.  XX. 
ic,  they  are  expreilly  faid  to  he  tormented  forever  and" 
ever. 

1,.   If  the  exprefs  words  ^'^  The  wicked  fiiall  ^/ou/j^'j- /zVe 
in  tormtnt,  vjkhout  dyhig,'*^  he  not  written  in  fcripture, 
yet  it  is  there  written,  that  ^'  they  fiiall  go  into  everlailing 
■'  ppnifhment  •/'   that  ''thefmoke  of  their  torment  fiiall 
afcend  forever  and  ever,"   **  that  they  ihzWhQiormaiied 
forever  and  ever,"'   ^c.      In    Rev.  XX.  lo,   it  is    faid. 
The  devil  that  deceived  them,   was  cali:  into  the  lake  of 
fire  and  briniilone,  where  tb.e  bead:  and  the    falfe    pro- 
phet are,   and  they  fi all  be  tormented  daj^  and  night  for- 
ever and  ever  ;"   F«rrt!i(r6«rcvV/,  in  the    phiral  number. 
Kow  fo  long  as  a  perfon  is  tormented,  he  lives  in  torment 
Without  dying  ;   and  to  be  tormented  forever  and  ever,  is 
tq  live  always  in  torment  without  dying.      What  right  then 
had  Dr.   C.  to  fay,  that  the  wicked  are  not  faid  to  live  al- 
ways in  torment  without  dying  >  And  if  the  very  words  juft 
quoted  from  Dr.  C.  had  been  infertedin  the  facred  volLm.e, 
they  might  have  been  explained  away  as  eahiy  as   the  ex- 
prei'iionsjuilnQw  quoted  from  fcripture,  and  as  the  many  o- 
ther  declarations  of  endlefs  torment  Vv  hich  are  there  to  be 
found.  It  might  have  been  faid, The  vvicked, while  fuch,  fhall 
indeed  always  live  in  tormenp  ;   but  no  fooner  fiiail  they  re- 
pent and  beccme  righteous,    than  they  fnall  be  delivered 
from  their  torment,   into  endlefs  blifs.     The  riphteousare 
no  more  in  the  very  words  faid  to  be  immortal  in  happinefs, 
than  the  wicked    are  laid  to  be  immortal    in   mifery  ;   and 
fnall  we  therefore   deny,  that  they  are  to  be  immortal  in 
happinefs?      If  it  had  been  faid,   that  the  Vv'icked  fhall  be 
incorruptible  or  indiilbluble  in  mifery,  it  might  have  been 
pleaded,  with    as    much  plauhbility,  as  attends    many    of 
Dr.   C's   pleas,   that  this  meant,  that   while  they  are  in 
mifery,   they  arc   incorruptible,    ccc,  not  that  they    Ihall 
without  end  remain  in  miferv. 

The  Doftor  tells  us,*  that  ^'  the  texts  v/hich  join  «/«- 
'^  v-'.f,  everlajlir.g^  with  the  mifery  of  the  wicked,  are  ve- 
'^  ry  few  in  comparifon  with  thofe,  which  join  v/ith  it  a 
*■'■  dinblution_,  deitruction,  or  death. '^     That  this  obferva- 

tion 


^  P    ^ 


79- 


mean  endlefs  duration,  261 

tion  may  be  at  all  to  the  purpofe,  it  ought  to  be  fiiown — - 
I.  That  dellruftion^  death,  kc,  as  applied  in  Icripttire  to 
the  damned,  are  inconriitent  with  their  endlefs  mileiy, 
and  are  not  at  the    fame   time,   eqnaliy  inconfiflent    with 

their  final  falvation. 2.  That  whenever  there  is  a  feem- 

ing  inconullency  between  feveral  paiTages  of  fcripture,  and 
to  relieve  the  difficulty,  we  are  neccihtated  to  underfland 
fome  of  them  in  a  figurative  fenfe  ;  we  are  to  determine, 
that  the  truth  is  according  to  the  literal  tenor  of  the  grea- 
ter number,  and  that  the  minority,  as  in  popular  aiTemblies, 
is  always  to  give  way  to  the  majority,  and  complaiiantly 
fubmit  to  a  figurative  conllruclion. 

A  VIEW  has  now  been  taken  of  Dr.  C's  arguments  to 
prove,  that  a/- y  eternity  and  ^/av/ic,  eternal^  do  not  in  the 
facred  writings  properly  mean  an  endlefs  duration.  Con- 
cerning the  validity  of  thofe  arguments,  it  is  the  province 
of  the  reader  to  judge. 

We  are  next  to  attend  to  the  Doclor's  anfwer  to  the 
argument  drawn  from  the  circumftance,  that  the  iame  word 
in  fcripture  is  ufed  to  exprefs  the  duration  of  the  mifery  of 
the  wicked,  as  is  ufed  to  exprefs  the  duration  of  the  hap- 
pinefs  of  the  righteous,  and  that  in  the  fame  text ;  as  Mat. 
XXV.  46  ;  *'  Thefe  (hall  go  away  into  eternal  punishment, 
but  the  rip-hteous  into  eternal  life.'' 

The  Doctor's  firft  anfwer  to  this  aroument  is,  that  the 
irate  next  fucceedhig  the  prefent,  is  not  final,  either  with 
rcfpect  to  the  wicked  or  the  righteous  :  and  therefore  the 
word  eternal  f  even  when  applied  to  the  life  of  the  righteous, 
means  not  an  endlefs  duration.*  For  this  hypochefis  he 
gives  no  new  reafons,  but  refers  us  to  v/hat  he  had  faid  be- 
fore, which  we  have  already  confidered,-]-  and  the  fnni  of 
which  is,  that  Chrifl's  kinrrdom'is  not  to  continue  without 
end,  but  is  at  laft  to  be  delivered  up  to  the  Father  ;  that 
the  .reward  promifed  in  fcripture  to  the  righteous  is  to 
be  beflowed  upon  them  in  this  kingdom  of  Chriif  ;  that 
that  reward  therefore  cannot  be  Vv'ithout  end. — In  oppofi- 
tion  to  this,  i^ has  been  ihown,  that  the  fcriptures  abun- 
dantly affure  us,  that  the  kingdom  of  Chrift  is  to  be  without 
end ;  and  that  whatever  is  i'aid  in  fcripture  concerning 
Chriit's  refignation  of  the  kingdom  to  the  Father,  mufc  be 
imderf^ood  in  a  confilfency  with  the  endiefs  duration  of 
Chriil's  kingdom:  and  an  attempt  was  made,  .to  fnov.^  in 
what  fenfe  of  refigning  the  kinf^dom.;  a  coniiflency  can  be 
preferved. 
■      5  P.  282.       t  P-  »34?  ^C.  FURTHER;, 


262  Evcrlaftingy  forever y  forever  and  ever. 

Further  ;  the  idea  now  advanced  by  Dr.  C.  cannot 
be  admitted,  in  a  conliilency  either  with  the  fcriptures,  nor 
'vvith  Dr.  C.  hinifelf. 

I.  Not  with  the  fcriptures.  For  if  Mat.  XXV.  46, 
and  the  many  other  texts,  vvhich  promife  eternal  Ufe  to. 
the  righteous,  do  not  promife  thera  an  endlefs  hfe  and  hap- 
finefs,  there  is  no  promife  of  i'uch  happineis  to  the  righ- 
teous in  all  the  fcripture  :  and  with  at  leaft  as  much  plau- 
fihiiity,  as  the  Doctor  evades  the  force  of  Mat.  XXV.  46  ; 
mz-Y  the  force  of  any  text  be  evaded,  which  can  be  brought 
to  prove  the  endlefs  hfe  of  the  righteous.  Let  us  confider 
thofe,  v/hich  the  Doclor  fuppofes  determine  the  future  hfe 
and  happinefs  of  the  righteous  to  be  endlefs.*  Luke  XX. 
36  ;  ^^  Neither  can  they  die  any  more.''  This  may  be  eva~ 
ded  two  ways  ;  it  may  be  faid  to  mean  no  more,  tlian  that 
they  fliall  not  die  during  the  -continuance  of  Chrifl's  king- 
dom ;  and  the  original  happily  favours  this  conilrucVion. 
o^Ai  »Too«v*/v  i''\i  Jv\ct/,Ai,  Neither  can  they  die  as  yet  ;  their 
death  will  be  deferred  till  the  end  of  Chrift's  kingdom. — 
It  may  alfo  be  evaded  thus,  If  they  cannot  die  any  more 
they  may //V^  inm'tjery. — -i  Cor.  IX.  25;  "  But  wean 
'*  incorruptible  crown."  True,  the  crown  may  be  incor- 
ruptible indeed !  but  the  poiTellor  may  be  very  corrupti- 
ble :  as  Dr.  C.  fuppofes  the ^rc  of  hell  may  be  endlefs^ 
though  the  wicked  Ihall  all  be  delivered  out  of  it  in   time. 

And  when  the  bodies  of  the  faints  are  faid  to  be  rai- 

fed  incorruptible y  to  put;  on  incnrruption,  immortality ,  &c, 
this  may  m.ean  indeed,- that  they  Ihail  exift  and  live,  but 
not  that  they  fliall  be  happy  without  end. — '•'  We  receiv- 
*'  ing  a  kingdom,  which  cannot  be  moved,''  Keb.  XII. 
28;   the  ^/;7^i/ow  may  indeed  be  immovable  ;  yet    a    great 

part  of  they/^^/Vc?/  may  be  removed. 1  Pet.  I.  4;  -^He 

*^  hath  begotten  us — to  an  inheritance  incorruptible,  un— 
"  defiled,  and  that  fadeth  not  away."  All  this  may  be 
true  concerning  the  inheritance,  yet  all  the  heirs  from  a- 
mong  men,  of  that  inheritance,  may  be  removed  from  the 
poiTemon  of  it,  and  in  that  fenfe,may  fade  away. — R.ev.  II. 
II;  '^  He  that  overcometh,  ihall  not  be  hurt  of  the  fe- 
<^  cond  death.*'  He  may  however  be  hurt  of  the  third, 
fourth  or  fifth  death. — Chap.  xxi.  4;  '^  God  fhall  wipe 
'^  away  all  tears  from  their  eyes,  and  there  Ihall  be  no 
*'  more  death."     Here  alio  I  avail  myfelf  of  the  original  : 

it 

*  P.  286, 


mean  ejidlefs  duration*  C163 

it  may  be  literally  rendered,  '^  The  death  fliall  not  be  as 
«  yet.''' — I  ThefT.  IV.  17;  ''  So  ftiall  we  be  ever  with 
'^  the  Lord."  The  word  fver,  tt^vIoIs,  properly  fignifies 
not  encllefsly,  but  conflantly,  conihiually ,  uninterruptedly. 
In  thiS  fenie  it  is  manifefljy  ufed  in  every  other  inftance 
in  the  New  Teftament,  Nor  is  it  in  anv  inflance,  befide  this 
I  ThefT.  IV.  17^  applied  at  all  to  the  future  flate.  There-, 
fore  I  Their.  IV.  17,  means  no  more,  than  that  the  faints, 
while  they  are  in  heaven,  (hall  be  uninterruptedly  .with 
Chrift;  as  John  XII.  8^  means,  that  while  v/e  are  in  tlie 
world,  we  uninterruptedly  have  the  poor  with  us. 

Thus  by  admitting  Dr.  C's  fenfe  of  Mat.  xxv.  46,  we 
erafe  from  the  fcriptures  every  promife  of  endleis  life  and 
happinefs  to  the  righteous,  and  overthrow  the  golpel. — 
Indeed  Dr.  C.  exprellly  holds,  that  there  is  no  promife  in 
the  gofpel  of  endlefs  happinefs  to  any  man  ;  how  confii- 
tently  with  himfelf,  the  reader  will  judge.  §  '^  The  re- 
^^  ward  promifed,  under  the  adminiilration  of  Chrifl's  king- 
'^  dom,  in  the  prefent  ftate,  in  order  to  perfuade  men  to 
*■  ^  become  his  good  and  faithful  fubjecls,  is  not  the  final 
"  happinefs  God  intends  to  beftov/  upon  them  ;  but  the 
'^  happinefs  of  that  ftate,  which  intervenes  between  the 
*^  refurreclion  and  God's  being  all  in  all.''  Yetf  he  quotes 
the  texts  remarked  on  in  the  lait  paragraph,  and  fays  they 
determine^  that  the  happinefs  of  the  righteous  is  to  be  end- 
lefs :  and  were  not  thofe  texts  funpofed  by  Dr.  C.  to  be 
promifes,  gi^^'en  under  the  adminiitration  of  Chrift's  king- 
dom, in  this  prefent  liate,  in  order  to  perfuade  men  to  be- 
come his  good  and  faithful   fubjecls  ? 

2.  Nor  is  Dr.  C'sconlfruclion  of  Matt.  XXV.  46,  any 
more  confiftent  with  his  own  fcheme,  than  it  is  with  the 
Bible.  His  whole  fcheme  fuppofes,  that  all  men  will  be 
finally  happy  j  and  he  beheved  that  the  doftrine  of  final 
happinefs  is  taught  in  fcripture.  He  profelTes  to  ground 
his  Vv'hole  book  immediately  on  fcripture.  But  if  there  be 
no  promife  in  fcripture,  of  endlefs  happinefs,  as  is  implied 
in  his  conftruflion  of  Matt.  XXV.  46  ;  and  as  heexpredly 
holds,  in  page  222  ;   his  v/hole  Phenie  fall's  to  the  ground. 

That  Dr.  C.  does  in  other  parts  of  his  book,  hold  that 
there  are  promifes  o'  endlefs  happinefs,  does  not  relieve 
the  matter.  To  be  inconiillent  and  to  ccntradid  one's  felf, 
clears  up  no  difhculty.     Who  is  anfwerable  for  that  incon- 

fiflence, 

§  P.  222.     t  p.  286,&c. 


a(J4  Everlaft'tng,  forever ^  forever  and  eiverl 

lulence,  I  need  not  inform  the  reader.  It  is  manifeft,  thff 
Doctor  v/as  driven  inio  this  inconfiilence,  by  the  preffure 
of  the  argument  from  Matt.  XXV.  46,  That  the  punifli- 
raent  of  the  wicked  is  of  the  fame  duration  with  the  hap. 
pinefs  of  the  righteous,  becaufe  in  the  very  fame  ientencei 
it  IS  faid,  Tiie  n  icked  fhall  go  away  into  everlafting  pu- 
niihmcnt,  and  the  righteous  hito  everlailing  life. 

If  there  be  no  promife  in  fcripture,  of  final  happinefs, 
then  all  thofe  texts  from  v/hicli  the  Doctor  argues  univer- 
ial  ialvation,  are  altogether  impertinent;  and  prove  no- 
thing to  the  purpofe  for  which  they  are  brought.  A  pro^ 
mife  is  an  aiTurance  of  tlie  beftowment  of  fome  future 
good.  If  therefore,  Rom.  V.  12,  &c,  Chap.  VIII.  19, 
&c,  I  Cor.  XV.  24,  &;c,  &c,  be  no  prcmifes  of  endlefs 
happinei.s,  they  afford  no  aiTurance  nor  evidence,  that  ali 
will  be  finally  faved. 

In  the  lame  planner  in  which  Dr.  C.  reftricts  Matt. 
XXV.  46,  to  a  limited  duration,  may  every  text  from 
which  he  argues  univerfal  falvation,  be  reflrifted.  If  the 
life  promiled  in  the  laft  quoted  text,  be  a  limited  life  ;  a 
life  to  be  enjoyed  before  the  kingdom"  is  delivered  up  to  the 
Father  ;  what  reafon  can  be  given  why,  in  Rom.  V.  18, 
*^  The  free  gift  came  upon  ail  men  to  jufLification  of  /i/'^/* 
the  life  proip.ifed  is  not  the  fame,   and  of   the  fame  limited 

duration? If  life  for  a  limited    duration    only   be   pro- 

mifed  in  Matt.  XXV.  46  ;  then  the  deiiruction  of  death 
for  a  limited  duration  only^  is  of  courfe  all  that  is  promifed 
in  the  f\im.e  text.  And  if  the  deftrudion  of  death  for  a  li- 
mited duration  only  be  all  that  is  promifed  in  Matt.  XXV. 
46 ;  hov/  does  it  appear,  that  a  deftrutJiVicn  of  death  for 
any  more  than  a  limited  duration ,  is  promifed  in  i  Cor. 
XV.  26,  "•  the  laft  enemy  that  Ihall  be  deflroyed  is  death  f 

And  how  flrange  is  it,  that  .Dr.  C.  fhould  from  B.om. 

VlII.  21,  *'  The  creature  fnall  be  delivered  from  the 
'^  bondage  of  corruption,  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the 
*'  children  of  Cod,'^  argue  the  certain  falvation  of  all 
men,  when  he  himfclf  holds,  that  the  glorious  liberty 
promifed  the  children  of  God,  does  not  mean  final  falva- 
tion. 

The  Doctor's  fecond  anfwcr  tothe  argument  from  Matt. 
XXV.  46,  is  founded  on  the  fuppolition,  that  the  iiext  is 
the  final  Hate  with  refped:  to  both  the    righteous  and  the 

wicked; 

*  P-   282. 


mean  endkfs  duration,  265 

kicked. II If  the  next   i1;ate    of  the    wicked   be   final, 

the  Doflor  abundantl7  declares,  that  all  men  v/ill 
not  be  faved.§ ^^  i^  the  next  flate  is  a  ftate  of  pu- 
nishment not  intended  for  the  cure  of  the  patients  them- 
felves, — it  is  impollible  all  men  iliould  be  finally  laved.''* 
If — the  wicked  are  fent  to  hell  as  fo  many  abfolute  incu- 
rables, the  fecond  death  ought  to  be  confidered  as  that 
which  v/ill  put  an  end  to  their  exiitence,  both  in  foul 
*^  and  body."  Thus  this  fecond  anfwerof  Dr.  C,  whol- 
ly -depends  on  the  iuppofition,  that  the  wicked  are  to  be 
annihilated  ;  and  to  evade  the  argument  from  ?Aat.  xxv. 
46,  to  prove  er.dlefs  punifiiment,  he  is  neceihtated  to  adopt 
thefchei-n'i  of  i;.nnihiIation,  and  thus  to  irive  ur>  his  whole 
fyfrenx  of  univeirfal  falvacion. 

Thz  Doctor  7 Ives  hs  three  reaibns  to  fhovv'',  that  even  on 
the  luppoiltion,  that  the  next  is  the  final  ilate,  it  v.ill  not 
foilov/,  fro;n  the  endlefs  happinefs  of  the  righteous,  that 
the  v/icked  will  fufter  endlefs  niiferv.  1  he  hrll  reafon  is. 
That  the  word  evdrlcjilng,  <t.a)v.ofj  when  applied  to  the 
righteous,  is  rnoftly  joined  with  the  word  I'^Je  :  whereas  tiiis 
word,  when  applied  to  the  vvickcd,  is  never  connected  with 
their  Ufe,  but  always  with  the  frrc',  or  with  their  dcmnatvjn, 

punlfhment   or  deJn-uf}ion.-\ Now    this   obfervation    is 

whody  impertinent,  on  any  ether  fuppofition,  than  that 
the  wicked  are  to  be  annihilated  :  for  Dr.  C.  himfelf  makes 
this  obfervation,  fuppofmg  that  the  next  flate  of  the  wick- 
ed v/ill  be  final.  And  if  it^be  final,  the  wicked  muil  be 
without  end  in  that  iiate,  which  is  allowed  by  all  to  be  a 

flate  of  mifery ;  or  they  mult  not  exifl   at  alL Thus 

flill  the  Doclior  is  obli;red  to  ^rive  up  his  favourite  fchemei 
of  the  falvgtion  of  all  men. 

His  fecond  reafon  is,  that  it  perfe6lly  falls  in  with  our 
natural  notions  of  the  infinite  benevolence  of  the  Deity, 
that  he  fhouid  reward  the  rip-hteous  \/ith  endlefs  life  ;  but 
not  that'he  Ihould  punifh  the  wicked  Vv'ith  endlefs  mifery.  t 
But  our  notions  of  the  benevolence  of  the  Deity,  are  to  be 
conformed  to  divine  revelation  ;  and  only  when  they  are 
conformed  to  that  (landard,  are  they  right.  And  to  fup- 
pofe,  that  the  endlefs  mifery  of  thofe,  who  live  and  die  in 
wickednefs,  is  not  agreeable  to  fcriptural  reprefentaticns 
of  the  benevolence  of  the  Deity,  is  a  mere  begging  of  the 


quefdon.' 


M  m 
I'V,  2S3.   §P.  II.  *  P.  -8:.  t  P.  tS^.  +  ?.  -.'^S^ 


a€6  EverU/Iing;  forever ^  forever  and  roeVy 

queflion. This  fubjedl  has  already  been   largely  confi^ 

dered  in  Chap.  VIII. 

Thp:  Doftor's  laft  reafon  is,  ^'  That  we  are  naturally 
'^  and  obvioully  led  to  interpret  «'«v/C5^  everlafting,  wh^w 
'^  joined  with  the  happinefs  of  the  righteous,  in  tlie> 
*'  endlefs  fenfe,  from  other  texts  which  detcrji:ine  tliis  to- 

*^  be  its   meaning."— ''   This''   adds    the   i^oftor,   '^   I 

<^  call  a  decifive  anfwer  to  this  branch  of  the  objection,, 
*'  uponfuppoiition,  that  the  next  is  the  fmalilate  of  man.''* 
Now  all  thofe  his  determinate  texts  iiDve  been  slrcady  con- 
fidered  in  page  262,  kc  ;  and  in  view  of  the  obferva- 
tions  there  made,  the  reader  will  judge;  whether  thofe 
texts  do  any  more  decifively,  than  the  word  aiu-vioc^  ever- 
lajllr.gy  prove  the  future  liappincfsof  the  righteous,  to  be 
without  end. 

To  confirm  his  conftruction  of  Matt.  XXV.  z]6,  Dr.  C. 
mentions  two  texts  in  which  he  fuppofes  the  word  «.-^>v/c.f, 
everlajthig,  is  in  the  fame  fentence  ufed  both  in  the  limit- 
ed and  endlefs  fenfe.  One  is  Rom.  XVI.  25,  26  ;  '*  Ac- 
<^  cording  to  the  myfiery  which  was.  kept  fecret  [Xroyo/f 

'<  «/£ov.t./c]  Jincc  the  world  began but  is  nov/  made   ma— 

<f  nifeft according    to    the   commandment    ['/oy  tf/«*v«oy 

**  Gto!.]  of  the  everiafling  God.''  Concerning  this  text 
it  was  before  obferved,  that  X/^ovc/c  c:/av/o;c  is  perfecliy  ca- 
pable of  the  endlefs  fenfe.  The  myilery  was  kept  I'ecret 
from  all  eternity,  or  during  the  eternal  ages  which  prece- 
ded creation;  or  through  the  eternity  a  parte  G7ite,  as  fome 
call  it.      So  that  this  text  anfwers  not  the    Doftor's  pur- 

pofe. The  other  text  produced  by  the  Doclor,    is  Tit. 

I.  2,  *'  In  hope  [^A'«f  -f/av/ov]  of  eternal  life,  which  God 
*'  that  cannot  lie,  promifed  [^/>6  Xcovfi^v  «/av/wv]  before  the 
*'  world  began.'*  On  this  text,  it  has  been  obferved,t 
that  there  is  no  abfolute  certaint3^,  that  it  means  a  hmited 
duration.  But  fuppolhig  that  this  indeed-is  an  inftance  to 
the  Doctor's  purpole  :  when  it  fnali  be  made  as  evident 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  cafe,  or  from  any  other  fource 
of  evidence,  that  the  wicked  cannot  be  punifhed  without 
end,  as  it  is,  that  God  could  not  give  a  promife  before 
eternity  ;  doubtlefs  we  Ihall  all  give  up  the  Doctrine  of 
endlels  punifiiment. 

At  length  we  come  to  the  Doctor's  criticifm  on  the  ex- 
j^ve^ion  forever  and  ever.' — —-He   feems   to   fuppbfe,  that 

fixprelfion 

*^  P.  287,  288.  t  P.  249. 


wean  endkfs  duration,  167 

CxprefHon  in  fcripture  does  not  refer  to  the  future  puniih- 
mentof  all  the  wicked,  but  only  of  '^  the  worihippers  of 
'*  the  beail/'  and  to  a  certain  **  rabble  rout  of  men,"  as 
he  calls. them.  Be  this  as  it  may,  it  equally  overthrows 
the  Doclor's  fcheme,   as  if  it  ever   fo  confefiedly    referred 

to  the  puniihment  cf  all  the  wicked. But  on  the  fup- 

pofition,  that  forever  and  ever  refers  to  the  punifnment  of 
the  wicked  in  common,  the  Doctor  thinks  that  that  ^^phrafe 
*^  is  obvioudy  capable  cf  being  underftood  of  a  limited  du- 
*^  ration."*  His  reafons  are,  That  */6.y  in  the  fingular 
number  almoft  perpetually  fignifies  an  age,    or    a   limited 

duration, § That  though    this    word   in   the  plural 

is  to  be  met  with  in  feverai  places  in  the  Septuagint,  yet 
in  them  all  it  fignilies  a  limited  duration,  f -^^  like  man- 
ner the  plural  of  «.-«•/  is  mod  commonly,  if  not  always, 
ufed,  in  the  Kew  Teftament,  to  point  out  a  limited  dura- 
tion;:}: Thatf/f  Ici/?  «t/vv«i(r  1&-v'«/':i)v6>v  is  applied  in  R.ev.Xl.  15, 
to  the  kingdom  of  Chriil,  and  therefore  muit  mean  a.  li- 
mited duration;!} — That  «/-  «/«/«  <«/iJvoc,  and  s/c  l^yj  AtccvxH-m 
9;f  'oy  *;av«  isf  a;A)vo-  are  alwavs  in  the  Septuagint,  to  be 
underftood  in. the  limited  fenfe.]!!] 

I.  hic^v  in  the  fmgular  number  almoft  perpetually  figni- 
fies a  hmited    duration. Anfwer  :   It   is  by   no    means 

granted,  that*/-Mn  the  lingular  almoft  perpetually  fignifies 
a  limitted  duration  ;  efpecially  when  governed  by  the  pre- 
pofition  £/?.  In  p.  250,  &c,  the  ufe  of  «  «^  in  the  New 
i  eftament,  was  traced,  both  in  the  fmgular  and  plural, 
and  it  was  found,  that  it  is  much  more  frequently  ufed  in 
the  endlefs,  than  in  the  limited  ^en'ie.  If  the  ufe  of  the 
fingular  number  only  be  traced,  in  even  this  number  it  is 
ftill  moft  frequently  ufed  in  the  endlefs  fenfe,  as  the  learn- 
ed reader  may  fee,  by.  examining  the  texts,  in  which  it  is 
ufed  in  the  Greek  Teftament,  all  v/hich  have  been  already- 
noted.-  Dr.'  C's  afiertion  therefore,  that  it  almoft  per- 
petually fignifies  a  limited  duration,  is  a  ?7iere  afertion, 
and  ftands  for  nothing  until  it  fhall  be  proved  :  and  to  make 
a  mere  affertion  aground  of  an  important  confequence,  is 
not  warrantable  by  the  lav/s  of   reafoning  and  philofophy. 

But  if  the  alTertion  v/ere'  ever  fo  true,  the  confequence, 
which  Dr.  C.  thence  draws,  would  by  no  m.eans  follow. — 
If  *»;«v  in  the  lingular  did  almoft  perpetually  (ignify  a  limi- 
ted duration,  1%  v.'culd  not  follow,  that  0/  hk^mz  Iw  ffiwu-  too 

figniiies 

*   P.   295,    §  P.  295,     t  P'  ^P^-     t  P-  '2-97'    !i  P-  298. 


l68  Everla/rlngy  forever,  forever  and  ever, 

figniSes  a  limited  duration.  Language  is  not  ma'de  mttii 
phyiically  by  philcibphers,  but  by  the  vulgar,  without  me- 
taphyilcal  reaiOuing  :  and  the  meaning  of  particular  phra- 
fes  is  wholly  determined  by  ufe,  not  by  metaphyfical  rea- 
loning  en  the  natural  force  of  the  words.  If'  therefore 
ufe  have  determined  «/  «/4;v«c  l^v  a/o-vuv  to  mean  generally 
or  univerlally  an  endleis  duration,  this  is  enough  to  fettle 
the  prefent  cueftion,  let  «;av  mean  in  the  fmgular  what 
it  may. 

Or  if  we  muH  reafon  metaphyfically  on  this  fubjedu,  it 
may  be  auerteu,  that  o  a.cuv  "^.v*  a<feVu)vor."i«''!-y*j ''^v«/a>y&M'isno 
abfurd  or  unintelligible  mode  of  expreffing  an  endlefs  du- 
ration. If  «;a)v  fignify  ^;;  age,  and^he  phrafes  juil  menti- 
oned  be  rendered,  the  age  of  the  ages  and  tkc  ages  of  the  a- 
^^•r,^  thellriaeftphilofbphy  vvill  juitify  ihoie  "phrai^s,  as 
applied  to  eternity.  V/chaVe  no  idea  of  eternity,  but  as 
an  endicfs  fuccellion  of  ages.  Therefore,  that  age,  thofe 
ages,  or  that  duration,  which  comprehends  all  thofe  ^^azz^i^ 
live  ages,  is  a  proper  eternity.  ^i\\^  Doclor  undertakes 
to  reaibn  metaphyucally  on  this  rabjed1,t  and  obferves, 
that  '^  a  duration  for  eternities  cf  eternities,  is  a  ve- 
ry  uncouth   inoce    of    expreffion."- But   it   is   not 

more  uncouth,  thcin  the  exprsliion  of  /m  tterniiy  added  to 
an  eternity^  or  an  etirnity  and  an  tterniiy.  Yet  this  is  the 
itnCc  an.i]j/fii  oi  j,.rt'uer  and  ever^  an  expreliion  rendered 
abuiiuantly  proper  by  ufe. 

One  thing  more  ought  to  be  obfeived,  that  ^/av,  whe- 
ther in  the  fingular  or  plural,  governed  by  the  prepofition 
*'f,  invariably  in  chc  Kcw  Tci-tamcnt,  figniiies  an  endlefs 
Ciuration.  But  hi  the  phrai'e  in  quemon,  f^f  ']ey?  aiava;  '/av  m^ 
yir  it  is  governed  by  that  prepolltioh. 

2.  That  though  «;..f£e,  the  plural,  is  met  with  in  fe- 
veral  places  in  the  Septu.igint,  yet  in  them    all   it  fignifies 

a  limited  duration.*- Anf.  i.    It  does  not  appear,  that 

Aiu^iii  in  the  Septuagint  always  fignifies  a. limited  durati- 
on ;  nor  is  it  ufed  in  this  fenfe  in  all  the  inftances,  vv  hich 
Dr.  C.  produces  to  prove,  that  it  always  means  a  limited 
duration  ;  as  Pfal.  CXLV.  13.  ''  Thy  kingdom  is  an  e- 
*'  verlafling kingdom  ;  /2*(r/>.i.ct ^r^y^ajv  I-a.v  c^tc^uev,^'  Dan. 
II.  44;   *^^  In  the  days  of  thefe  kings,  the  God    of  heaven 

"    Ihall  fet  up  a  kingdom and  it  fiiail  fband  forever,  «/f 

'}kvc  a.a/a;.''       Tliough  the  Dovftor  endeavours  to  prove^ 

that 
t  P.  297^.  298.      *  P.  2c;6. 


mean  endlefs  duraihn*  5169 

that  in  tliefe  texts  a  limited  duration  muft  be  intended,  be- 
caufe  in  i  Cor,  XV.  28,  Chrift  is  reprefented  as  delivering 
Up  his  kingdom  to  the  Father  ;  yet  it  is  at  ieaft  as  clearly 
proved  by  Luke  I.  33,  ''  Of  his  kingdom  there  is  no  end/' 
and  the  other  texts  before  quoted,?;:  that  the  texts  now  in 

queftion  are  to  be  taken  in  the  endlefs   fenfe. BefideSj 

how  does  it  appear,  that  Pfal.  CXLV.  13,  refers  to  the 
kingdom  of  Chrift,  as  diftinguilhed  from  the  kingdom  of 
the  Father?  And  the  kingdom  of  the  Father  Dr.  C.  al- 
lows, is  without  end. 

Theiie  are  other  texts,  in  which  «t/«v«?  feems  beyond 
difpute  to  be  ufed  in  the  endlefs  fenfe  ;  as  Pfal.  lxxvii. 
7.  ^'  Will  the  Lord  caft  off  forever,  «/c  >^c  */«ra^{  ?  and 
^^  will  he  be  favourable  na  moreV^  The  latter  exprelfion 
explains  the  former    to  mean  an  endlefs  duration.     The 

next  verfes  further  confirm  this  idea. Dan.  iv.  34  ;  '*  I 

*'  praifed  and  honoured  him,  that  liveth/Vc'i;^r,  «k  Ic^j  «/- 
'<  ^ivo.f.''*  Chap.  VI.  26  5  '^  For  he  is  the  living  God,  and 
*^  Itedfaft  fot^ever,  ui  loiy?  «;«»«;.''  If  Atuyn  be  not  in 
thefe  inftances  ufed  in  the  endlefs  fenfe,  it  is  in  vain  to 
fearch  for  inftances,  in  which  it  is  ufed  in  that  fenfe  ;  and 
it  maybe  prefumed,  that  it  is  incapable  of  any  applicati- 
on, by  which  it  fhali  appear  to  be  ufed  in  that  fenfe. 

Ans.  2.  But  if  it  w*ere  ever  fo  true,  that  «/»v?c  is  never 
ufed  in  the  Septuagint,  but  in  a  limited  fenfe  ;  it  by  no 
tneans  thence  follows,  that  ♦*?  ^t^^i  */«»«;  lav  a.itiiu>y  is  in 
general,  or  at  all,  in  the  Neiu  Tffiarndnt,  ufed  in  a  limited 
ienfe. 

2.  In  like  manner  the  plural  of  «;«?,  is  commonly,  if 
not  always,  ufed  in  the  New  Teftam.ent  to  point  out  a  li- 
mited duration.*  The  anfwers  to  this  argument  are  the 
very  fame,  with  thofe  given  to  the  preceding. — (i)  The 
plural  of  rt/«v,  in  the  New  Teftament,  even  when  it  is 
not  redoubled,  is  not  commonly,  much  lefs  always,  ufed 
to  point  out  a  limited  duration ;  but  is  generally  ufed  to 
point  out  an  endlefs  duration,  as  the  reader  may  fee  by  the 
texts  in  which  it  occurs,  all  which  are  noted  in  the  mar- 
gin.f     Dr.  C>  quotes  Luke  I.  33,  <^  He  ihall  reign  over 

<*  the 
r^i  m  2 

tP.235,  &c.     *  P.  297. 

t  In  the  endlefs  fenfe.  Mat.  VI.  t§.  Luke  I.  7t.  Rom. 
I.  25.  IX.  5.  XL  36.  XVI.  27.  2  Cor.  XI?  3^-  ^P^^- 
lIL  II,  21.  *i  Tim.  1.  17,  and  Heb.  XIII.  3. In  the 


*lj^  Everlaflingy  forever^  forever  and  ever, 

'^  the  hoiife  of  Jacob  forever/'  as  an  inftance^  that  -t/^t^tj 
means  a  limited  duration.  But  if  he  had  quoted  the  whole 
verfe,  the  latter  part  would  have  effeclually  confuted  his 
^enic  of  the  former  part.     The  words  are,  *'   and  of  his 

^^  kingdom  there  fhall  be  no  end.'' (2)  If  ^tavuhy  it- 

felf  did  commonly  point  out  a  limited  duration,  it  would 
not     follow,     that  -the    fame    limited    fenfe    l3elonp-s  to 

o 

4.  E;e  loc?  «e;«vitc  l«y  a/^-rav  is  applied  to  the  king- 
dom of  Chrirt,  in  Rev.  XL  15  ;  and  therefore  muft  mean 

a  limited  duration. f Anfwer  :   The  application  of  that 

phrafe  to  the  kingdom  of  Chrift,  is  no  proof  at  all,  that  it 
is  ever  ufed  in  the  limited  fenfe  :  becaufe  it  appears  by 
Luke  I,  33,  Dan.  VII.  14,  Ifai.  IX.  7,  and  more  large- 
ly by  what  was  faid,  page  235,  &c,  that  Chriit's  kingdom 
is  without  end. 

5.  1  he  phrafeS     £/?   eticaytt  a/wyo;,   and  s/f   lev  «,'&•(/*  jt^?,   n^     'iny 

*/av*  '/o!.'  «/<-.'y6c  are  always  in  the  Septuagint,  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  limited  ^en^Q.t 

Anfwer  i.  It  is  by  no  means  a  .conceded  point,  that 
thofe  phrafes  in  the  Septuagint  are  always  to  be  undcrftood 
inalimited  fenfe.  The  contrary  appears  even  from  tfhe  in- 
ftances  quoted  by  Dr.  C.  to  prove  that  they  are  ufed  in 
the  limited  fenfe  ;  as  Pfal.  GXIX.  44,  ^'  So  fiiall  I  keep 
*^  thy  law  continually  forever  and  ever."  Pfal.  CXLV/ 
2,  *^  I  will  praife  thy  name  forever  and  ever."  To  fnp- 
pofe,  that  thefe  texts  contain  no  more,  than  a  profelTed  in- 
tention of  the  pfalmiflj  to  obey  and  to  praife  God,  as 
long  as  he  fhould  hve  in  this  world,  is  as  arbitrary  a  fup~ 
pofition,  as  to  fuppofe,  that  when  the  fcriptures  fpeak  of 
God  as  living  forever  and  ever,  they  mean  no  more,  than 
.that  God  will  live  as  long  as  men  live  in  this  world. 

Anfwer  2.  But  if  thofe  phrafes  in  the  Septuagint  did 
ever  {o  certainly  mean  a  limited  duration,  it  would  notfol- 
low,  that  alio  the  very  different  phrafe  ?;^-  lovj  «/6>r«(:  '/w?  Aixvav 
in  the  New  Teftament,  means  a  limited  duration.  The 
truth  is,  this  lafl:  phrafe  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Septua- 
gint, thoup-h  it  frequently  occurs  in  the  New  TeftamxCnt. 

Be 

l^i  mi  ted  fenfe,  i  Cor.  II.  7.  X.  11.     Eph.   II.    7.   Heb.   I. 

a,   IX.  26.  XI.   3. In  Eph.   111,9.  and  Col.  1.-6, 

it  is  capable  of  cither  fenfe. 
;i^  P.   298.    i;  P.   301.; 


mcdn  cndkfi  duraimt,  ti'ji 

Be  it  fo  therefore,  that  thofe  phrafes  in  the  Septuagint, 
mean  a  limited  duration  ;  is  it  not  very  fingular  argunien-r 
tation,  thence  to  infer,  that  a  very  different  phrafe  found 
in  the  New  Teflament,  means  a  Hraited  duration  toe  I 
This  is juft  as  if  Dr.  C.  had  argued,  that  becaufe  the  word 
lion  in  the  Septuagint  means  a  four-footed  beaft,  therefore 
the  word  man  in  the  New  Teflament  means  a  four-footed 
beaft  too. 

The  Do6lor||  holds,  that  ''  it  is  of  no  ilgnincancv, 
'*  that  this  phrafe  is  fometimes  applied  to  God  :"  becaufe, 
if  from  this  application  merely,  we  argue  the  abfolute  e- 
ternity  of  God  ;  we  may  argue  the  abfolute  eternity  of  the? 
land  of  Canaan,  and  of  the  fucceflive  generations  of  men^ 
from  the  application  to  them,   of  the  fame  or  an  equivalent 

plirafe. But  the  fame  phrafe  is  never  applied,   either  i<j 

the  land  of  Canaan,  or  to  the  fuccellive  generations  of  men: 
and  whatever  other  phrafe  is  applied  to  them,  is  by  that 
very  application  proved  not  to  be  equivalent  :  Becaufe  we 
have  no  other  poflible  way  to  know,  that  any  phrafe  is  equi- 
valent, than  by  its  application  to  thofe  fubjects  alone, 
Avhich  are  of  equal  duration  with  thofe,  to  which  alone  the 

phrafe    in  queftion  is  applied. The  Doctor    proceeds  ; 

*^  Reafon  aiTures  us,  that  the  duration  of  God  will  have  no 
**  end'' — for  this  caufe,  ^'  not  from  the  force  of  this 
'^  phrafe,  we  interpret  it  when  applied  to  God,  as  mcan- 
''  ing  a  duration  without  end.''  But  is  not  the  eternity  of 
God  revealed  in  fcripture,  as  well  as  known  by  reafon  ? 
If  fo,  where  and  in  what  words  is  it  exprelTed  ?  Let  any 
more  determinate  expreffion  of  it  be  pointed  out  in  the 
fcriptures.  If  the  divine  eternity  be  clearly  revealed  in 
fcripture/  and  this  phrafe  be  as  determinately  exprefTive  of 
it,  as  any  in  the  bible,  doubtlefs  it  determines  the  future 
puniihment  of  the  wicked  alio,  to  be  without  end,  becaufe 
it  is  repeatedly  applied  to  that. 

Finally,  the  Dodor  obferves,*  *"'  That  it  is  as  certain, 
*'  that  the  phrafe  £/c  ']o:/c  «.■«?«■?  l«v  st,«vft)v,  ouQ;ht  to  be  con- 
^^  ftrued/ar  ages  of  ages,  as  that  the  %vicl;ed  in  the  re- 
*^  furreclion  ftate,  will  not  be  incorruptible,  but  fiiall  die 
'^  a  fecond  time."  That  the  wicked  fliail  reap  corruption, 
andfliall  fuffer  the  fecond  death,  is  not  in  the  leaft  incon- 
ffftent  with  their  endlefs  mifery,  unlefs  corruption  and  the 
fecond  death  mean  either  annihilation  or  final  Iiappinefs.   If 

tk?y 

II  P.  303.     *  P.   304. 


272  Chfct-vatloris  concermng  the  fire 

they  meaii  the  fame  with  the  deftruflion  of  the  wickedj 
they  mean  mifery,  as  Doclor  C.  himfelf  allovv's  ;  f  and 
no  man  will  fay,  that  the  declarations  of  fcripture,  that  the 
\vicked  iiiall  reap  m'fsry^  or  fulTer  mifery,  are  a  proof,  that 
that  mifery  is  not  endlefs.  Or  if  corruption  and  the  fecond 
death  mean  a  tranfirion  from  the  refurrection  ftate,  to  the 
next  fucceedingftate,  if  ariy  fuch  there  be,  ftill  thatfucceed- 
ing  ftate,  or  the  final  ftate  of  the  wicked,  may  be  a  flats 
of  mifery.  But  if  corruption  and  the  fecond  death  mean 
annihilation,  they  overthrow  the  falvation  of  all  men.  Is 
it  not  therefore  furprizing,  that  Dr.  C.  ihould  over  and 
over  again,  inlifi:  on  an  argument,  as  fully  demonftrative 
of  his  fcheme,  which  argument  either  wholly  overthrows 
his  fcheme,  or  is  utterly  impertinent  to  the  fubje^l  I 

On  the  whole,  it  is  left  with  the  reader  to  determine^ 
■whether  the  reafons  offered  by  Dr.  C.  prove,  that 
2-f  '?ovf  fli/tfivxj  lay  tf.iu>ia>t  meaus  a  limited  duration.  — 
That  the  reader  may  judge  concerning  the  true  force  of 
that  expreffion,  every  place,  in  which  it  is  ufed  by  the  in- 
fpired  writers,  is  noted  in  the  ^largin.  J 

Next  Occurs  Dr.  C's  anfwer  to  the  argument  from 
Mark  IX.  43  ;  '^  The  fire  that  never  Ihall  be  quenched  5 
*'  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched.'' 

■ The  Doflor's  anfwer  conlifcs  of  thefe   particulars—* 

That   the  fire  of  hell    may  never  be  quenched  ;  yet  the 

wicked  may  not  live  in  it  endlefllyif That  in  hell,  of 

while  the  wicked  are  in  the  next  ftate  of  exiftence,  theii* 
worm  indeed  ihall  nqt  die,  and  their  firefliall  not  be  quench-* 
ed  ;  but  their  tor:-nent  fhali  be  continued  during  their  ex- 
iftence  in  that  ftate.  1| — ■ — As  to  the  firft  obfervation,  That 
the  fire  of  hell  may  never  be  quenched,  though  the  wick- 
ed fnall  be  delivered  out  of  it  in  time,  by  either  falvation 
or  annihilation  ;  it  has  been  obferved  to  be  a  mere  wild 
conje6lure,  and  probably  would  never  have  been  thought! 
of,  had  not  the  fcheme  been  in  diftrefs,  and  muft  be  re^ 

iievcd 

f  P.  224. 

§  Gal.  I.  5.  Phii.  IV.  '10.  1.  Tim.  I.  17.  2  Tim, 
IV.  18.  Heb.  Xill.  21.  I  Pet.  IV.  n.  V.  11.  Kev, 
I.  6,  18.  IV.  9,  10.  V.  n,  14,  VII.  12.  X.  6.  XL 
15.  XIV.   II.  XV.   7.  XIX.  3.  XX.   le.  yXI.I.  5. 

^  P.   -II,   fj  Ibid. 


i^at  nsvsrfiail  he  quenched,  273 

iieved  by  fome  means  or  other.      Other  remarks  have 
been  made  on  this  conjedure,  to  which  1  refer  the  reader. 
Nor  does  the  latter  obfervation,  efpecially  as  connect- 
ed with  the  former,  appear  to  be  more  rational  or  perti- 
nent.    According  to  thefe  two  bbfervations,  the  fenfe   of 
Mark  IX.   43,  44,  is  merely  this  ;   It  is  better  for  thee  to 
enter  into  life  maimed,  tlian  having  tv/o  hands,   to  go  into 
the  fire  v/hich  never  Ihall  be  quenched,  though  thou  mayeit 
foonbe  delivered  out  of  it;   and  in  which  while  thou  con- 
tinuell:,  thy  torments  will'  not  ceafe.     But  where    is    the 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  this  proportion  ?    How  does  it  ap- 
pear to  be  better  for  a  man  to  cut  ofFhis  right  hand,  and  be 
Forever  after  maimed,  than  to  go  into  a   lire  which  is  in- 
deed endlefs,    and  in  which  while  he  continues,  he  will  be 
uneafy,  and  even  feel  torment  :   though  he  may  not  con- 
tinue in  it  two  minutes  or  two  feconds  ?     Vv  ho  would   not 
choofe  to  fuiFer  even  a  very  painful  torment,   for  a  few  fe- 
conds,   or  minutes,  rather  than  to  lofe  an  hand  or  an  eye? 
Thus  th^  fenfe  which  Dr.  C.   puts  on  Mark  IX.  43,  &:c. 
utterly  frnllrates  the  manifeft  deiign  of  our    Lord,  which 
was    in  that  pafTage  to  exhibit  a    moft  powerful  motive   to 
the  greateft  felf-denial.     But  according    to   the   Dcftor's 
conftrucliori,  the  palTage  contains  no   powerful  motive  to 
felf- denial^   or  any  thing  al^t. 

Befides  ♦  is  it  not  flat  and  infipid,  to  tell  a  man,  that  he 
fhall  go  into  a  fire  which  never  Ihall  be  quenched,  though 

he  may  be  immediately  taken  out  again?— Yet  this  is  the 

fenfe  which  Dr.  C.  puts  bn  thofe  v/ords  of  our  Saviour  ! 
But  how  is  it  to  the  purpofe  ?  or  how  does  it  concern  any 
man,  if  he   be  not  in  the  fire    of  hell,  that  that  fire  fhall 

never  be  quenched? Suppofe   a  man  is   to  be  burnt  at 

the  ftake.  It  ^would  be  a  matter  of  indifference  to  him, 
whether  the  fire,  in  which  he  fliould  be  put  to  death,  be 
continued  burning  for  five  hundred  years^  after  his  deaths 
or  be  extinguiihed  immediately  :  and  to  tell  him  by  way 
of  threatening,  that  that  fire  fhall  be  kept  up  five  hundred 
years  after  his  death  ;  or  to  threaten  a  criojiucd  wbo  is  a- 
bout  to  be  executed  on  the  gallows,  that  the  gallow^s  on 
which  he  ihall  die,  ihall  fcand  a  thoufand  years  after  his 
execution  ;  would  be  perfcdi;  impertinence. 

Doctor  C.  feems  to  inlift  much  on  this.  That  in 
Mark  IX.  43,  &c,  a  reference  is  had  to  the  punifhment  of 
thofe  whofe  bodies  were  either  burnt  in  the  valley  of  Hin- 

N  n  noin, 


274  Ohfcrvailons  concernmg 

nom,  or  permitted  to  lie  upon  the  ground,  to  be  fed  upo!l 
by  worms.  But  it  does  not  thence  follow,  asDr.  C.  fup- 
pofes,  that  as  the  fire  of  the  valley  of  Hinnom  went  out, 
when  the  bodies  were  confumed,  and  the  worm  died, 
when  the  bodies  were  eaten  up  ;  fo  the  fire  and  worm  of 
hell  ihall  ceafe.  The  fenfc  may  be,  that  as  thofe  bodies 
in  the  valley  Hinnom,  were  confumed  by  fire  and  worms, 
which  after  a  while  ceafcd  ;  fo  the  v/isked  in  hell  fliall  be 
tormented  by  fire  and  worms,  whicli  fliall  not  ceafe. — 
Indeed  this  is  expreflly  aflertcd  :  and  as  Mr.  Hopkins  jufl- 
ly  obfervee,  *'  It  cannot  be  granted,  that  our  Saviour^ 
*^  by  thofe  words,  "  Where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and 
*'  their  fire  is  not  quenched/'  means  a  worm  that  dieth, 
**  and  a  fire  that  is  quenched  xcvy  fbon.  For  this  would  be 
**   to  fuppofe,  he  means  d^Tt&Sy  contrary  to  what  htfays,^^*" 

Ti'iE  Deftor  argues  againfl  endlefs  punifliment  from  the 
fmallnefs  of  the  number  of  thofe  v.-ho  are  faved  in  the  next 
ftate.f  That  *'  only  a  few  of  mankind''  fhculd  be  faved 
final'y,  and  *'  the  greater  part  eternally  pcrifV  he  thinks 
not  reconcileable  with  the  great  mercy  of  the  Chriflian 
difpenfation ;  or  ^with  the  glad  tidings  of  great  joy,  and 
the  divine  good  will  celebrated  at  the  birth  of  our  Savi- 
our. This  argument  is  built  on  the  fuppofition,  that  it 
would  not  be  difhonorary  to  Chrifl,  that  a  minority  of 
mankind  be  loft.  But  this  would  be  equally  inconfiflient 
with  Dr.  C's  fcheme^  as  that  a  majority  be  loft. 
This  argument,  as  .it  grants  that  fome  will  not  be  faved, 
^ives  up  the  grand  qucftion,  and  difputes  concerning  the 
number  only,  v/hich  is  to  be  faved.  But  this  is  no  fubjedt 
of  difpute  in  this  controverfy. 

Is  it  then  no  infrance  of  great  ^nd  glorious  mercy,  to  in- 
ftitute  a  fcheme,  by  which  faiv.ation  may  be  offered  to  eve- 
ry creature ;  by  which  whofoever  will,  may  take  the  wa- 
ter of  life  freely,  and  no  man  fliall  perifli,  but  in  confe- 
quence  of  his  ov/n  voluntary  rcjedlion  of  that  inftitution  ? 
Is  not  the  certain  information  of  this  infdtution  indeed  glad 
tidings  of  great  joy  to  all  people  ?  Is  not  the  inftitution  a 
clear  proof  of  the  abundant  o-ood  Vv^ill  of  God  to  men,  even 
though  flnners,  through  then*  voluntary  oppofition,  obtain 
no  good  by  it  ?  It  certainly  is,  if  we  may  believe  Dr.  C. 
'  for  it  is  a  maxim  v/ith   him,  ^'  th:it  Vv-e  mufl:  not  judge  of 

the 

*  Future /late  of  thofe  who  dis  in  their  fins.     -}-  P.  ^22* 


the  number  df  thefaved*  27J 

^^  the  divine  goodnefs,  by  the  a6lual  good,  v/hich  we 
*^  fee  produced,  but  muft  take  into  view  the  tenden- 
*'  cy  of  the  divine  adminiilration/'  &c,  fee  the  quoiati- 
ons  made  page  139. 

The  Doctor  fays,  '^  It  is  incredible,  that  God  fliould  con- 
^'  flitute  his  Son  the  Saviour  of  men,  and  the  /n.'/(- of  them 
*/'  be  ymally  damned."*  But  why  is  it  incredible?  Is  it 
not  an  undertaking  worthy  of  Chrift_,  in  a  way  moil  hono- 
rary to  God,  to  open  a  door  of  mercy  and  falvation  to  all 
mankind,  though  by  the  wicked  and  ungrateful  rejeclioii 
of  Chrift  by  the  majority,  a  minority  only  will  adlually  be 
faved  ?  If  it  be  not  credible,  that  God  fiiould  conilitute  his 
fon  the  faviour  of  men,  and  ^'  the  bidk^'  of  them  be  final- 
ly damned,  is  it  credible,  that  Chrift  fnould  be  conflituted 
the  faviour,  and  a  hire  majority  of  mankind  be  faved  ?  If 
jict,  how  large  mufi;  the  majority  be  ? 

As  to  the  obfervation,  *'  That  it  is  a  grofs  refleclion  on 
'^  the  faviour,  v/hofe  proper  bufmcfs  it  is,  to  deitroy  the 
*^  works  of  the  devil,  and  refcue  mankind  out  of  his  hands; 
^^  to  fuppofe,  that  the  devil  fnould  finally  get  the  better 
'■^  of  Chrift,  by  eftecling  the  evcrlafting  damnation  of  the 
*^  greater  part  of  men  ;''f  there  are  fome  particulars  '\\\ 
it,  which  v/ant  explanation.  Firft  ;  v/hat  is  meant  by  de- 
ftroying  the  works  of  the  devil  >  If  this  mean  to  abolifli  all 
(in,  and  all  the  mifery  confequent  on  fm  to  any  of  the  hu- 
man race  ;  it  is  not  granted,  that  this  is  the  proper  hufinefs 
of  our  Saviour,  nor  is  this  the  proper  meaning  of  the  ori- 
ginal in  I  Joh.  III.  8,  the  text  to  which  Dr.  C.  refers* 
The  verb  is  xi/ct-h^  dl[pjhe,  take  to  pieces,  and  thus  prevent 
theilleffed  of  the  works  of  the  devil.  But  if  deftroying 
the  works  oT  the  devil  mean,  to  defeat  and  to  prevent 
the  ill  confequences  of  thofe  works,  fo  that  no  final  damage 
fnall  thence  arife  to  the  intereft  of  God's  kingdom,  or  of 
the  univerfe  ;  it  is  granted,  that  this  is  the  proper  bufmefs 
of  Chrift.  But  it  is  not  granted,  but  that  this  may  be  ef- 
fected, without  the  faivation  of  all  men. Again,   what 

is  meant  by  '''  the  devil's  getting  the  better  of  Chrift?'' 
This  doubtlefs  means,  that  he  defeats  Chrift  more  or  lefs, 
as  to  fome  objed  of  his  mediatorial  undertaking.  But  Dr. 
C.  has  no  more  made  it  appear,  that  the  final  faivation  of 
only  a  part,  and    a    fmall  part  of  the  human  ra(re,  iniphes 

iuch 

*  P,  323.     t  Ibid, 


fi:ch  a  defeat ;  or  that  it  w;is  net  the  original  intention  of 
Chriil  to  Uve  a  Imillpirt  only  ;  than  he  has  made  it  ap. 
pear,  that  it  was  die  intention  of  Chriit  t©  fave  all  men. 

Dr.  C.  feemsnot  to  have  refiected,  \vhile  he  was  urging 
this  aro;ument.  tliatit  equally  militates  againll  his  o\\"n  laft 
refort/ai:rihilation.  For  if  an  **  end  be  put  to  the  exift- 
*'  ence,  both  in  louland  body,'^  of  all  who  die  impeni- 
tent, as  the  Doclor  allows  will  be  the  cafe,  if  miiverfal 
falvation  be  not  true  ;§  then  on  his  principle*,  the  devil 
will  not  be  vanquilhed  by  Chriil ;  tlic  works  of  the  devil 
-w  ill  not  be  deRroyed,  but  '*  he  will  get  the  better  of  Clirift, 
**  bv  eiteciing  the  everlafting  delb'ucnon  of  the  greater 
•'  part  of  thofe  whom  Chriir  can.e  from  heaven  to  fave."'* 

So  that  when  this  objedion  Ihall  be  anfwered,    fo  far 

as  it  lies  aeainfl  Dr.  C's  lafl   refort,  doubtlefs    an    anfwer 
will  be  fupplied  to  thofc  who  believe  in  tndleis  mifer}-. 

After  all.  it  is  not  an  article  of  my  faith,  that  only  a 
fmall  part  cf  the  human  race  w  ill  be  foally  faved.  But 
my  faith  in  this  particular  is  not  built  on  abflract  reafcn- 
ino-s  from  tlie  divine  gcodnefs  and  the  mhlion  of  Chrift. 
That  divine  goodnefs  which  fuftered  all  the  apoftate  angels 
to  perilh  finally,  might  have  fuiicred  all.  or  a  greater  part 
of  the  apoitate  race  of  men,  to  perilh  in  like  manner.  My 
faith  is  built  on  feveral  reprefentations  and  prepiiecies  of 
fcripture,  particularly  concerning  the  millennium,  and  the 
general  and  long  prevalence  of  virtue  and  piet\'  in  that  pe- 
riod. Therefore  in  this  view,  the  foundation  of  the  objec- 
tion from  the  Imallnefs  of  the  number  faved,,  is  taken  a- 
wav. 


CHAP, 
<  P.  282.  *  P.  ^2^. 


^r.  Cs  remarks  tn  Mark  XT/.  21,  c:nfid:red,       ijy 


CHAP.     XV. 


fn  which  are  Cjnfidered  Dr:  Cs  ar.f'j:srs  to  the  crgwner^ts 
drarjjn  frrjm  what  Is  J  cad  c.r.cerning  Judas,  Mark  XIV  * 
1\  ; — frzm.  the  unpard'jn^'zl:  fin  ; — ar.dfrzm  the  tsyidtr.' 
cy  %f  the  d'iclrlne  ^jf  unrverful  fal'jati'in  t^  l^centhufr^fs , 

THE  Do£;or  anfv.ers  to  the  arg^unient  frcm  Z^Iark 
XIV.  21,  '*  Vt'o  to  that  man  by  -vboni  the  Son  of 
'*  Man  is  beiravecl.  Ccc<i  v.ere  it  for  that  man,  if  he 
**  had  never  been  born  ;'^  That  perhaps  it  may  be  a  pro- 
verbial expreflion,  no:  l::era]!v  true  ;* That  if  the  li- 
teral feni'e  were  the  moft  reafonable,  coniidering  this  text 
by  itfelf ;  yet  cccCcering  the  many  paiTagei  brought  by 
Dr.  C.  v.hich  declare  the  final  falvation  of  all  3>en,  we 
muft  not  underiland  this  Daface  in  the  literal  fcfe,  as  in 
that  cafe  weihall  fet  the  fcripture  at  variance  vnth  itfelf  ;f 
— That  the  real  nzeaning  of  this  paiTAge  may  be  propheti- 
cal, as  if  our  Lord  had  'aid,  *'  The  man  who  ihali  betray 
me  *•  ihall  pradically  declare,  that  in  his  apprehenlicn.  it 

'^  were  good  had  he  not  been  brought  into  being.^'i 

As  to  the  firft  of  thefe  anfwers,  it  is  a  mere  unfupported 
conjecmrc,  and  therefore  is  to  be  fet  dovm  for  nothii;-. — 
As  to  the  fecond,  it  is  not  allowed  that  the  Doctor  ha* 
produced  any  one  paiTage  of  fcriptnre  which  declares  the 
final  falvation  of  all  men  :  but  this  in  view  of  whkt  has 
been  faid  on  the  pafTages  produced  by  the  Dod:or,  i*   foh- 

mittcd  to  the  reader. As  the  Dodor  contends  that  this 

paiTage  cannet  be  underwood  in  the  literal  feine,  without 
fetting  the  icripture  at  variance  with  itfelf;  fo  it  is  contend- 
ed by  the  advocates  for  endiefs  puniihment,  that  it  can  be 
underitood  in  the  literal  fenfe,  vsithcut  fetting  the  fcriptnre 
at  variance  with  itfelf  in  the  ^eaft  degree  ;  and  that  the  ge- 
neral tenor  of  the  fcriprare  points  out  the  literal  fenfe  to 
be  the  true  fenfe.  .  As  to  Dr.  C's  third  anfwer,  it  is, 
in  th«  hrCt  place,  a  mere  unfapported  ccnjeonre  :  fecond- 
I7,  it  may  be   noticed,  that  it  is  manifeft,  that  the   text 

pronooDces 

*  ?     ^z'^      ■?-  P     -^-^-^       t  P    o-*! 


t7%  Dr,  €*s  rtmarks  on  the 

pronounces  the  proper  wo  or  curfe,  which  iliould  fall  oa 
the  man  who  fhould  betray  our  Lord.  *^  The  Son  of  Man 
^'  indeed  goeth,  as  it  is  written  of  him  ;  but  wo  to  that 
^*  man,  by  whom  the  Son  of  Man  is  betrayed  :  good 
^*  v/ere  it  for  that  man,  if  he  had  never  been  born.'' — 
But  according  to  Dr.  C.  all  the  curfe  which  this  text  de- 
nounces, is  fuch  a  wearinefs  of  iife  and  impatience  of  ex- 
iilence,  as  has  fometimes  befallen  ev«n  true  faints  •,  as  in 
the  inftance  of  Job.  And  is  it  credible  that  this  was  the 
proper  and  fnll  curfe  of  betraying  the  Lord  of  life  and 
glory  ?  Or  that  if  this  be  but  a  very  fniall  part  of  the 
curfe  of  that  abominable  wickednefs,  our  Lord  would 
have  mentioned  it  in  fach  a  manner,  as  naturally  to 
communicate  the  idea,  that  it  is  ihe  proper  and  full  curfe 
of  it? 

After  all  the  ingenuity  of  Dr.  C.  and  other  univer- 
faliits,  in  torturing  this  palFage  to  a  meaning  confident  with 
their  fcheme  ;  it  remains  ar  plain,  direel-,  and  pofitivc  tefd- 
mony  againll  it. 

Next  follows  Dr.  C^s  anfwer  to  the  argument  from 
what  5s  faid  concerning  the  fm  againft '  the  Holy  Ghofi:^ 
Matt.  Xn.  331  ;  *'  Whofocver  fpeaketh  againft  the  Holy 
''  Ghoft,  it  fiiall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  thi^ 
*^  world,  neither  in  the  v/orld  to  eome.''  Mark  TIL  29; 
'^  He  that  Ihall  blafphcme  againfl  the  Holy  Ghofl  hathne- 
"  ver  forgivenefs,  but  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damna- 
*'  tion.'^  Luke  XIL  10,  *'  Unto  him  that  blafphemeth 
^'  againfl  the  H®ly  Ghoft',  it  fliall  not  be  forgiven." 

The  Docftor'sfirft  anfwer  to  this  argument  is  taken  froi^ 
Croiius — he  tells  us  th2.i  Grotius  ''looks  uponthe  words  as 
•*  an  Hebraifm  intended  to  fignify,  not  Jo  much  the  par- 
*^  donablenefs  of  fome  fnis,  and  the  unpardonablenefs  of 
*'  others  ;  as  the  greater  diiKculty  of  obtaining  pardon  for 
"  blafphemy  againfl:  the  Holy  Ghoft,  than  for  any  other 
^^  blafphemy."  It  is  wholy  immaterial  whether  the  words 
were  intended  to  fignify  n^tfo  ynuch  the  unpardonablenefs 
of  fome  fins.  If  they  were  intended  to  fignify  at  all  the 
unpardonablenefs  of  fome  fins,  that  is  fufficient  for  the  pre- 
fent  purpofc.  So  that  both  Dr.  C.  and  his  favourite  author 
CrottuSy  virtually  concede  all  that  is  demanded  in  this  in- 
ftance . 

CoNCERNiNO  this  conflrudlon  of  GroiluSy  which  is  but 
a  mere  conjedure^  brought  in  to   help  over  an  argument 

which 


zwparJenahIc  /in,  cortjidcrsd.  Vf^ 

^hich  crouds,  hardly  on  Dr.  C's  fchcme  ;  the  Doclor  fays, 
'<  Whoever  goes  about  to  prove,  that  there  is  no  truth  in 
^'  it,  will  perhaps  find,  thvit  he  has  undertaken  a  very 
''  hard  tafe.'^  The  fame  may  be  faid  of  any  man,  who 
fiiould  undertake  to  prove,  that  there  are  not  a  dozen  pri- 
mary planets  belonging  to  the  folar  fyflem  ;  or  who  fhould 
undertake  to  diiprcve  any  one  of  a  thoufand  other  conjec- 
tures. 

After  all,  the  Do6lor  does  not  depend  much  on  this 
conflruclion  of  Grotius,  and  proceeds  to  give  us  his  own 
fenfe  of  the  paffages  above  quoted  ;  which  is.  That  it  is 
indeed  true,  that  ^'  the  blafphemy  agairxft  the  Holy  Ghoft 
'-  is  abfolutely  unpardonable  ;''*  that  the  divine  law  fhalJ 
take  its  courfc  on  thofe  who  are  guilty  of  that  blafphemy, 
and  no  intervening  pardon  v.'ill  prevent  the  full  execution 
of  the  threatened  penalty  on  them  :  and  forgivenefs  ftrid- 
ly  and  hterally  fpcakiug  will  not  be  granted  to  them  ;f  yet 
that  they  will  be  finally  faved,  and  admitted  to  heaven, 
after  they  ihall  have  fuffered  the  full  penalty  threatened  in 

the  law. On  this  idea  of  Dr.  C.   fome  remarks  have 

been  already  made  m  Chapter  I.  Nor  can  it  cfcape  the 
notice  of  the  attentive  reader,  that  it  implies,  that  fome 
men  are  faved,  not  only  without  forgivenefs  ;  without 
the  exercife  of  divine  grace,  in  the  fcriptural  fenfe  of 
grace  ;  without  any  aid  from  the  merit  or  atonement  of 
Chrift  ;  and  therefore  not  ^^  on  the  account,  on  the  ground, 
"  or  for  the  reafon  of  Chrifl's  obedience  and  death  ;'*t 
but  wholly  on  the  footing  of  the  law.  But  the  idea  that 
aay  of  mankind  are  to  be  faved  without  forgivenefs,  is 
wholly  foreign  from  the  fcriptures,  nor  can  it  be  pointed 
out- to  be  contained  in  any  part  of  fcripture.  Every  chapter 
of  the  gofpel  is  inconfiftent  with  it  ;  to  refer  to  parti- 
cular   texts  -would    be   endlefs  and   needlefso And 

what'  divine  grace  is  there  exercifed  in  the  falvation 
of  one,  who  has  by  fuiFering  the  whole  threatened  penalty 

of  the  lav/,  made  full  fatisfaclion  for  his    own  fms  ?   

There  is  manifeftly  no  more  grace  in  faving  luch  a 
man,  than  there  is  in  faving;-  one  v.'ho  has  ne- 
ver fmned.  Nor  is  he  who  has  fuffered  the  full  penalty  cf 
the  law,  faved  on  account  of  the  death  or  obedience  of 
Chrift.  On  the  account  of  Chrift's  obedience  or  death  hs 
isreleafed  from  no  punifnment:   and  to  fuppofe,  tint  God 

has 

*  P-  334-     t  '^'  33^'     t  P-   20. 


^So  Dt\  Cs  fcheme  tends 

has  not  goodnefs  enough,  without  an  atonement,  to  i-At 
a  creature  to  heaven^  who  in  the  eye  of  the  law  is  per- 
fedly  innocent,  is  a   fuppofiticn  utterly  inconfiftent  with 

the  divine  goodnefs. Laftly,  he  who  is  faved  in  confe- 

quence  of  fuifering  the  whole  penalty  threatened  in  the 
law,  is  faved  on  the  foot  of  law.  Yet  it  is  utterly  and  a- 
bundantly  deniedjby  Dr.  C.  to  be  polFible,  that  any  fmner 
fliould  be  faved  on  the  foot  of  law. 

In  view  of  thcfe  oblervations,  the  reader  will  judge, 
whether  Dr.  C's  conftruclion  of  the  paflages,  which  fpeak 
of  the  iinagainft  the  Holy  Ghoft,  be  adniilJible  :  and  whether 
thofe  pailages  and  the  argument  deduced  from  them,  do 
not  remain  in  full  force  againfl  unirerfal  falvation. 

We  come  at  length  to  Dr.  C^s  anfv/er  to  the  laft  argu- 
ment of  thofe  in  the  oppoiite  fcheme  which  he  conliders^ 
which  is  drawn  from  the  tendency  of  Dr.  C's  fyilem  to  li- 
ce ntioufne  fs  and  vice. 

On  this  the  Doctor  cbferves  ;  '^  To  difprove  the  final 
*'  falvation  of  all  men,  it  muft  be  plainly  fhown,  that  this 
*'  doftrine  does  naturally  and  directly  tend  to  encourag© 
'^  men  in  vitious  practice.*''  In  this  it  is  implicitly  grant- 
ed, that  if  the  doi^rine  of  univerfal  falvation  do  indeed  na- 
turally and  directly  tend  to  encourage  men  to  perfift  in  vi- 
tious  practice,  it  is  not  true.  On  this  we  may  join  iflue 
with  him.  That  that  doctrine  does  comparatively  encou^ 
rage  men  to  pcrfilt  in  vice,  Vvill  appear   perhaps  from  the 

following  confiderations. It  will  not  be  denied   that   if 

there  were  no  puniflnnent  threatened  to  the  wicked,  it 
would  naturally  and  directly  encourage  them  to  perfifl  in 
vice.  This  is  granted  by  Dr.  C.-— **  Had.  we  attemptedf 
'^  to  introduce  mankind  univerfally  into  a  ftate  of  happi-. 
**  nefs,  upon  their  leaving  this  v/orld,  whatever  their  mo- 
*'  ral  conduct  had  been  in  it,  the  argument,''  that  Dr.  C's 
fcheme  tends  to  hcentioufnefs,  '^  would  then  have  held 
*'  ftrong."  But  if  the  argument  holds  Itrong,  provided 
there  be  no  future  puniihment,  it  holds  proportionably,  if 
that  puniihment  be  very  fmall  and  far  lefs  than  is  deferved 
by  the  wicked  ;  and  efpecially  if  at  the  fame  time  that  pu- 
niihment be  fuited  to  their  perfonal  good.  Now  that  the 
future  puniihment  of  the  wicked  is,  on  Dr.  Cs  fcheme, 
very  fmall,  compared  witli  v/hat  it  is  on  the  oppofite  fcheme, 
is  manifeft  at  firit  fight  ;  'it  is  infinitely  lefs.     And   that  it 


P.  341.      t   P.  ->- 


13 


fj    Itcentioufnefs ,  &|^ 

is  far  lefs,  nay  infinitely  lefs  than  the  wicked  deferve,  is 
manifeft  by  what  Do6tor  C.  as  well  as  his  oponents,  al- 
lows, that  all  who  are  faved,  are  faved  by  unbounded  grace  o 
Therefore,  if  the  damned  be  finally  faved,  as  they  are 
fared  by  unboundsd  grace,  they  are  punilhed  infinitely 
lefs  than  they  deferve.  Alfo,  that  according  to  Dr.  C's 
fcheme,  the  wicked  are  to  be  punilhed  with  a  difciplinary 
punifhment  fuited  to  the  good  o;  the   fubje^ls,   is  manifeft 

from  his  whole  book. Mow  that  this  punifhment  of  thSi 

wicked  does  comparatively  encourage  vice,  may  be  illuf- 
trated  by  an  example.  It  is  generally  agreed  tliat  murder 
deferves  death.  But  fuppofe  a  law  ihould  be  made,  by 
which  no  murderer  fhould  be  punifhed  with  death,  or  with 
any  other  puniiliment  to  be  continued  longer,  than  till  he 
fhould  repent.  Would  not  fuch  a  law  as  this,  compared 
with  the  law  as  it  now  ftands,  naturally  and  diredly  tend 
to  encourage  murder  ?  I  need  not  make  the  applica^^ 
tion. 

Doctor  C.  feems  to  think  that  his  doclrine  of  future 
punifhment  even  more  powerfully  reflrains  fromfm,  than 
the  dottrine  of  endlefs  punifl^iment,  becaufe  his  dodrine  is 
more  credible  to  men  in  general.  But  are  we  to  inquire 
what  is  moll:  likely  or  moft  eafy  to  be  believed  by  men  in 
general,  to  determine  what  is  mofl  likely  to  reflrain  from 
fm  or  to  be  the  real  truth  of  God  I  Then  certainly  the 
doctrines  df  the  divine  character  and  million  of  Chrift,  of 
his  miracles,  refurredion,  afcenfion,  &c,  &c,  in  fliort  the 
dodtrines  of  chriftianity  in  general,  are  not  fo  hkely  to  re- 
ftrain  men  from  fin  as  the  do6lrines  of  mere  natural  reli- 
gion. Or  if  it  be  faid  that  thofe  doctrines  are  capable  of 
fuch  proof;  as  will  fatisfy  and  convince  all  candid  inquirers; 
the  fame  is  faid  of  the  dodrine  of  endlefs  punifiiinent. 

I  HAVE  now  finilhed  my  reply  to  Dr.  C's  anfwers  to  the 
argume,nts  in  favour  of  endlefs  punifliment  ;  and  having 
before  confidered  his  arguments  in  favour  of  his  own 
fcheme  ;  I  fliall  proceed  to  fome  arguments  in  confirmaticn 
of  the  doclrine  of  endlefs  puniiliment. 


9  0  C  H  A 


t> 


tf^  Pcfitivt  cvtdetfc^ 


CHAP.    XVI. 

In  luhiehfome  dire^  arguments  are  propofed,  to  prove  the 
endlefs  pumJJ)ment  of  the  wicked. 

A  M  fenfible  that  my  book  is  already  protracted  to  a 
coniiderable  length.  Therefore  to  relieve  the  patience 
of  the  reader,  I  (hall  endeavour  to  crowd  this  part  into  as 
narrow  a  compafs  as  poflible.  Indeed  if  the  anfwers  already 
given  to  the  objc6tion«  to  endlefs  puniihment,  be  fufficient, 
the  lefs  needs  be  faid  in  way  of  direft  proof. 

The  various  texts  always  brought  in  difcourTes  on  this 

fubjedl,  come  now  v/ith  full  force,  in  proof  of  this  dodrine. 

As  Mntt.  XVIII.   8  ;  'Mt  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  in- 

'  to  life  halt  or  maimed,  rather  than  having  tv.'o  hands  or 

'  tv/o  feet,  to  be^c-fl  into  everlajling  fire.^*  Chap.  XXV, 

41  ;  *'  Then  fliall  he  fay  unto  them  on  the  left  hand,    de- 

'  part  from  me,  ye  curfed,   into  everlafling  fire  prepared 

^  for  the  devil  and  his  angels."     Verfe  46th  ;   "   Thefe 

'  fhall  go  away    into    everlajVing  pumJJnricnt.^^     1  ThclT, 

I.   9 ;   *'   Who  ihall  he  puniihed  with  everln/ling  dedruc- 

tion  from  the  prefence  of  the  Lord  and  the  glory  of  his 

power.''     2    Pet.   II.    17  ;     '^  To   whom  the  niift   of 

darknefs  is  referved /crfT^^r."     Jude   13:   *^  To  whom 

is  referved  the  blacknefs  of  darknefs  forever.'^     Rev. 

XIV.    10,    II  ;   *'  And  he  fliall  be  tormented  with  fire  and 

'  brimflone,  in  the  prefence  of  the  holy   angels,  and  in 

^  the  prefence  of  the  Lamb  :     And  the    fmoke    of  their 

*  torment  afcendeth  up /o;r7;(fr  ^w^  <?Z/rr."  Chap.  XIX. 
[  ;   ^^  And  again  they  faid,  Alleluia  :  and  her  fmoke  rofe 

*  up  forever  and  ever.^^  Chap.  XX.  10;  '^  And  the 
^  .devil  that  deceived  them,  was  caft  into  the  lake  of  fire 
'  'and  brimflone,  where  the  beaft  and  the  f^lfe  prophet 
'  are,  and  [they]  fhall  be  tormented  day  and  night, /or- 
'  ever  and  ever  P 

The  evafions  of  thefe  texts  have  been  particularly  con- 
fidcred,  and  it  is  hoped,  fuiliciently  anfwered. 

THi^ 


c/"  endlefs  puntfttmsnt*  285 

The  Greek  words  ufcd  in  thcfe  texts  are,  «t/<i)y/«?,  in 
«/tty«  and  «/c  1«i'c  «;6irn/c  lav  •t;6)v*!v.  From  an  infpedlion  of 
every  text  in  which  thefe  words  and  phrafes  are  ufed  in 
the  New  Teftament,  it  has  bien  found,  with  regard  to 
the  firft,  that  quite  contrary  to  Dr.  C's  account,  it  ''  is 
*'  almoft  perpetually/'  i.  e.  in  the  proportion  of  66  to  2,  ufed 
in  the  endlefs  fenfe  ;  fetting  afide  the  places  in  which  it  is 
applied  to  the  punifhment  of  the  wicked.  With  regard  to 
the  other  two  phrafes,  it  has  been  found,  that  they  ar« 
without  exception  ufed  in  the  endlefs  fcnfc.  Nor  does 
the  Greek  language  furnilh  any  word  more  dcterminately 
exprelfive  of  endlefs  duration  :  and  notwithftanding  what 
Dr.  C.'fays  to  the  contrary,  it  appears  that  they  do  as 
properly  and  dcterminately  exprefs  an  endlefs  duration,  as 
the  Englifli  words  eternal  and  etcnuiy.  If  therefore  thefs 
words  be  explained  away  to  mean  a  mere  temporary  dura- 
tion, it  is  impoifible  that  any  words  be  ufcd,  wliich  would 
not  fuifer  the  fame  treatment  from  the  fam^  hands. 

The  texts  concerning  the  fm  againft  the  Holy  Ghofl  ftill 
remain  a  clear  proof  of  endlefs  punilhment.  They  arc 
Matt.  XII.   31,    32;   ''The  blafphcmy  againft  the  Holy 

''   Ghofl,  ihall  not  be  forgiven  unto  men Whofoever 

*'  fpeaketh  againft  the  Holy  Ghoft,  it  fiiall  not  be  forgiven 
^'  him,  neither  in  this  world  neither  in  the  world  to  come." 
Mark  III.  -29  :  ''  He  that  ihall  blafpheme  againft  the 
*'  Holy  Ghoft,  hath  never  forgivcnefs  ;  but  is  in  danger 
*'  of  eternal  damnation. '^  Luke  XII.  10  ;  Unto  him  that 
'*  blafphemeth  againft  the  Holy  Ghoft,  it  ihall  not  be  for- 
*'  given.'' 

So  long  as  the  gofpel  rejecls  every  idea  of  the  falva- 
tion  of  men  without  foro-ivenefs,  fo  lono;  will  thefe  texts 
confute  the  falvation  of  all  men. 

To  thefe  I  may  add  the  following  texts  ;  i  John  V. 
16  ;  "  If  any  man  fee  his  brother  lin  a  fm  which  is  not 
^'  unto  death,  he  ihall  afic,  and  he  fnail  give  him  life,  for 
'^  them  that  iin  not  unto  death.  There  isaftn  unto  death, 
'^  I  do  not  fay  that  he  fh  all  pray  fsr  ii.^^  So  that  we  are 
not  to  pray  for  thofe  who  fm  unto  death.  Vs/"hy  not?  evi- 
dently becaufe  their  falvation  is  impoifible.  If  their  fal- 
vation bepofhble,  I  prefume  no  lufiicient  reafon  can  be  gi- 
ven, why  we  fhould  not  pray  for  it.  If  it  fliould  be  laid 
that  we  are  not  to  pray  that  the  falvation  of  fuch  ilio'uld  be 
immediately   accomplifhed,  but  that  it  may  be  accompliih- 


^84  Pofitive    evidence 

cd  in  due  time  :  the  anfwer  is  at  hand,  that  v/e  are  nqt 
at  liberty  to  pray  that  any  man  may  be  faved  out  of  due 
time  ;  and  in  this  fenfe  we  are  prohibited  ro  pray  for  the 
falvation  of  any  man. 

Heb.  VI.  4 — 6  ;  ''  For  it  is  impofTible  for  thofe  who 
*'  were  once  enlightened,  and  have  tailed  of  the  heavenly 
*'  gift,  and  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and 
''  have  tailed  the  good  word  of  God,  and  the  powers  of 
^^  the  Yvorld  to  come  ;  if  they  fliail  fall  away,  to  renew 
'^  them  again  unto  repentance.'*  Since  it  is  impoflible  to 
renew  fuch  to  repentance,  it  is  according  to  Dr.  C.  as 
well  as  the  fcipturc,  impolhble  that  they  be  faved.  Of 
like  import  is  Chapter  X.  26,  27  ;  '^  For  if  ^yc  fm  wil- 
*'  fully  after  that  wc  have  received  the  knowledge  of  x)a^ 
'^  truth,  there  rcmaiiieth  no  more  facrifice  for  fms,  but 
*'  a  certain  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment,  and  fiery  in- 
'^  dignation,  which  fliall  devour  theadverfaries.''  If  there 
remain  «o  more  or  no  longer  3.  {cLcnfice  for  fms  ;  then  neither 
will  the  man  whofe  charader  is  here  defcribed,  be  ab^e 
by  his  own  fufFerings  to  make  a  facrifice  or  fatisfaclion  for 
his  fins,  nor  will  the  facrifice  of  Chrlft  be  longer  of  any 
avail  to  him.  And  if  the  judgment  and  fiery  indignation, 
which  ih all  devour  the  advcrfaries,  remain  for  him  ;  he 
inufl  fufFer  them  without  a  pofilbility  of  efcape,  either  by 
the  facrifice  of  Chrifl  or  in  confequence  of  his  own  fufFer- 


mo-s. 


The  .wo  denounced  by  Chrift  on  Judas  alfp  fecms  to  re- 
main a  demonftrative  proof  of  endlefs  punifliment.  Matt. 
XXVI.  24,  and  Mark  XIV.  21  ;  ''  Wo  to  that  man  hj^ 
^^  whom  the  Son  of  Man  is  betrayed  :  good  were  it  for 
*'  that  man  if  he  had  never  been  boa'n.''  Let  Judas  fuifer  a 
temporary  mifery  of  ever  ^q  great  duration,  it  muftbe  in- 
finitely lefs  than  an  endlefs  duration  of  happinefs.  So  that 
if  Judas  were  finally  to  enjoy  endlefs  happinefs,  he  would 
be  an  infinite  gainer  by  his  exiilence,  let  the  duration  of 
his  previous  mifery  be  what  it  might.  It  was  therefore  on 
the  fuppofition  of  his  final  falvation,  not  only  good,  but 
infinirely  good,  that  he  had  been  born  :  which  is  a  direct 
contradidlion  to  the  declaration  of  our  Saviour. 

In  connexion  with  this  paiTage,  I  ihall  introduce  the 
following;  Luke  VI.  24;  *^  W  o  unto  you  that  are  rich  : 
'*  for  ye  have  received  your  conjolatinn,'^  On  the  fuppo- 
(Jtipn  of  the  falvation  of  all  men,  the  rich  do  hy  no  means 

:(eceive 


«/*  endlefs  pun'ijbmint,  1^^ 

receive  in  this  life  their  confolation ;  but  they  are  to  re- 
ceive infinitely  the  greateft  confolation  in  the  future  life.— ^ 
Pfalm  XVII.  14;  **  From  men  of  the  world,  wiio  have 
*'  their  portion  in  this  life;''  Plainly  implying  that  they 
are  to  have  no  portion  in  the  future  life.  Luke  XVI.  25  ; 
*^  Son,  remember  that  thou  in  thy  life  time  receivedft  thy 
*'  good  things.''  If  all  fhall  be  faved,  the  rich  and  the 
men  of  the  world  in  no  other  fenfe  have  their  portion  in 
this  life,  than  the  reft  of  men. — They  have  fome  good 
things  in  this  world,  but  infinitely  the  greateft  part  of  their 
happinefs  is  to  be  enjoyed  in  the  world  to  come,  and  what 
they  enjoy  here,  is  nothing  in  c«mparifon  with  what  they 
are  to  enjoy  hereafter.  More  than  this,  cannot  be  faid  of 
any  man. 

Mark  IX.  43 — 49;  ^'  If  thy  hand  offend  thee,  cut  it 
'*  off:  it  ift  better  for  thee,  to  enter  into  life  maimed,  than 
'^  haying  two  hands,  to  go  into  hell,  into  the  fire  that  ne« 
*'  verfhall  be  quenched  :  where  their  worm  diethnot,  and 
*'  the  fire  is  not  quenched.  And  if  thy  foot  offend  thee, 
*^  cut  it  off:  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  halt  into  life, 
than  having  two  feet^  to  be  caft  into  hell,  into  trie  fire 
that  never  fliall  be  quenched  ;  w^here  their  worm  dieth 
not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched.  And  if  thine  tye: 
offend  thee,  pluck  it  out:  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  with  one  eye,  than  having 
two  eyes,  to  be  caft  into  hell-fire :  where  their  worm 
dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenthed."  Mat.  III.  12; 
Whofe  fan  is  in  his  hand,  and  he  fliall  thoroughly  purge 
*^  his  floor  ;  and  gather  his  wheat  into  the  garner ;  but 
*'  he  will  burn  up  the  chaif  with  unqu::nchablefire." 

John  III.  36.  *'  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son,  hath  e- 
^^  verlafting  life  :  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son,  fiiall 
*'  not  fee  life;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him."  If 
all  are  to  be  faved,  then  all  will  fee  life  and  enjoy  it. 
Should  it  be  faid,  that  the  meaning  of  this  text  is  barely^ 
^hat  he  that  believeth  not,  fhall  not  fee  life,  while  he  remains 
an  unbeliever  ;  it  may  be  obferved,  that  this  fenfe  of  the 
text  will  admit  the  idea,  that  unbelievers  may  all  become 
believers,  at  death,  or  at  fome  future  time  in  life;  as  it 
holds  forth  no  more,  than  that  a  man  while  an  unbeliever, 
fiiallnot  be  admitted  to  life  ;  and  fays  nothing  but  that  all 
unbelievers  may  become  belieixrs  in  this  life,  or  at  death  ; 
and  therefore  may  attain  to  life  and  falvation  in  heaven, 

jiift 


21 86  Pofitlve   evidence 

juft  as  foon  as  thofe,  who  are  now  believers.  But  can  any 
man  bring  himfelf  to  believe,  that  this  text  was  not  de- 
figned  to  teach  us,  but  that  unbelievers  will  attain  to  the  life 
and  ialvation  of  heaven  as  foon  as  believers?  If  that  be 
the  true  fenfe,  this  text  teaches  us  no  more  concerning  un- 
believers, than  is  true  concerning  all  faints  in  this  ftate  of 
imperfeiftion.  It  may  on  this  fuppofition  be  faid,  with  e- 
qual  truth,  and  in  the  fame  fenfe,  that  no  imperfefl:  faint 
fiiall  fee  life,  as  that  no  unbeliever  fliall  fee  life.  It  is 
plain,  that  this  text  was  meant  to  exhibit  fome  privilege 
of  the  believer  above  the  unbeliever.  But  if  the  con- 
flruftion,  now  under  confideration,  be  the  true  one,  and  u- 
niverl'al  falvation  be  true,  what  is  that  privilege?  The  be- 
liever has  the  promife  of  an  endlcfs  life  ;  fo  has  the  unbe- 
liever in  common  v/ith  all  mankind.  The  believer  cannot 
perhaps  be  admitted  to  the  inheritance  of  that  promife, 
\vithin  lels  than  ten  or  twenty  years.  Within  the  fame 
time  the  unbeliever  may  b«  admitted  to  the  fame  inherit 
tance,  whether  he  be  admitted  to  it  at  death,  or  in  con- 
sequence of  fome  difcipline  in  hell,  by  which  he  is  led  to 
repentance  and  faith.  The  believer  has  the  prefent  com- 
fort of  anticipating  his  future  happinefs  ;  there  is  on  the 
plan  of  univerfal  falvation,  abundant  foundation  for  the 
fame  anticipation  to  the  unbeliever.  It  is  true,  the  unbe- 
liever is  not  yet  prepared  for  the  poiTefrion  of  heavenly  hap- 
pinefs :  neither  is  the  believer  during  his  prefent  imper- 
fedtion. 

Luke  XVI.  26  ;  "Andbefides  all  this,  between  us 
^'  and  you,  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed  :  fo  that  they  which 
^'  would  pafs  from  hence  to  you,  cannot  ;  neither  can 
*^'  they  pafs  to  us,  that  would  come  from  thence. ''  Mat. 
VI.  15;  ^'  If  ye  forgive  not  m.en  their  trefpafTes,  neither 
''  will  your  Father  forgive  your  treipaffes.  Chap.  XXIII. 
34,  35  ;  "  And  his  Lord  was  wroth,  and  dehvered  him 
^*  to  the  tormentors,  till  he  fhould  pay  all  that  was  due  un- 
^'  to  him.  So  likewife  ihall  my  heavenly  Father  do  alfo 
^^  unto  you,  i' ye  from  your  hearts  forgive  not  every  oud 
^^  hisbrother  their  trefpalTes."  Heb.  VI.  8  ;  *'  That  which 
^'  bearcth  thorns  and  briers,  is  rejected ^  and  is  nigh  unto 
^'  curfiiig  ;  whofe  cndi%  to  be  burned." — How  is  the  end 
of  any  man  to  be  burned,  if  all  fhaii  finally  be  faved  ?  Luke 
XIV.  24;  '^  For  I  fay  unto  you,  that  none  of  thofe  mea 
*-'  wiip  \yerc  bidden,  fhall  taile  of  my  flipper.'^  Chap.  XIH . 


if  indlefs  punipnne-ni,  aS/ 

"15,26, 17  ;^'When  once  theinafleroftlieliourcisrifenup, 
**  and  hath  iliut  to  the  door,  and  ye  begin  to  ftand  without, 
"^  and  to  knock  at  the  door,  faying,  Lord,  Lord,  open  un- 
*'   to  u«^  and  he  fhall  anfwer   and  fay    unto    you,   I  know 

**  you  not,  whence  you  are 1  tell  you,  I  know  you  not, 

**  whence  you  are,  depart  from  me,  all  ye  workers  of  ini- 
quity.''— Rev.  XXn.  II,  12;  *'  He  that  is  unjufl,  let 
him  be  unjuft  flill :  and  he  which  is  filthy,  let  him  be 
fikhy  ilill  :  and  he  that  is  righteous,  let  him  be  righte- 
ous ftill :  and  he  that  \%  holy,  let  him  be  holy  ftill.  And 
behold,  I  come  quickly  ;   and  my  reward  is  with  me,  to 

^^   p-ive  to  every  man  according  as  his  v/ork  lliall   be.'' 

Thefe  lail  Vv^ords,  with  verie  loth,  determine  this  text  to 
refer  to  the  general  judgment. — The  words  of  the  tenth 
verfe  are/  *^  Seal  not  the  fayings  of  the  prophecy  of  this 
*^  book  ;  for  the  time  is  at  hand."  But  a  period  ages  of 
ages  after  the  general  judgment  cannot  be  faid  to  come 
quickly,   and  to  be  at  hand. 

If  to  thefe  texts  it  Ihould  be  faid,  that  they  mean  no 
more,  than  that  they  cannot  as  yet  be  faved,  though  they 
will  be  fa  ved  in  proper  time;  I  anAver,  (i)  That  there 
is  no  appearance  in  the  texts  thcmfelves,  of  fuch  a  fenfe  ; 
(2)  That  if  that  vv'-ere  the  true  fenfe,  they  would  mean  no' 
more,  than  might  be  faid,  mutatis  mid  and:  Sy  of  all  real 
faints,  v/ho  are  not  about  to  die  immediately;  (3)  That 
that  fenfe  would  imply,  either  that  the  future  punilhment 
of  the  wicked  is  a  mere  v/holcfome  difcipline,  or  that  thofe 
Vv'ho  die  impenitent  do  net  deferve  endlefs  punifiment.  If 
they  pafs  the  great  gulf  as  foon  as  they  repent,  their  pu- 
nilhment is  a  mere  wholefome  difcipline  :  but  that  it  is  not 
a  mere  wi^.olefome  difcipline,  I  have  endeavoured  to  fhow 
in  Chap.  II.  and  III.  If  they  fuffer  the  full  punifhment, 
which  they  deferve,  and  then  come  cut,  they  are  faved 
without  forgiven efs,  and  they  never  deferve d  an  endlefs 
punifliment,  the  contrary  to  which  I  have  endeavoured  to 
prove  in  Chap.  VI.  To  thofe  chapters  I  beg  leave  to  refer 
the  reader,  for  what  might  he  faid  here  in  further  anfwer  to 
this  objection. — If  becaule  the  damned  cannot  pafs  the  great 
gulf  at  prefent,  it  be  faid.  There  is  a  great  gulf  fixed,  {o 
that  they  cannot  pafs  thence  to  heaven,  then  becaufe  a 
faint  is  not  about  to  die  at' prefent,  it  might  with  propriety 
be  faid,  there  is  a  great  gulf  £xed  between  him  and  hea- 
ven, fo  that  he    cannot  pafs  it. — If  thofe    fcriptural  ex- 

prelfions^ 


i8S  Pojltlve    evidence 

preffions,  ^^  Let  him  be  unjuft  ftill/' — "  Great  gulf  fixed^ 
^'  io  that  they  cannot  pafs/^ — '^  Depart,  I  know  you  not/' 
*^  Shall  not  talle  of  my  fupper," — &:c,  mean  no  more,  than 
that  they  fliall  remain  unjuft  &c,  for  the  prefent :  why 
may  not  the  following  expreOTions — **  Shall  not  come  into 
^^  condemnation/' — ''  Are  juftified  from  all  things/' — ^'  Is 
^'  pafTed  from  death  unto  life*' — &c,  mean  no  more,  than 
that  the  faints  fhall  not  come  into  condemnation  for  the  pre- 
fent, or  for  fomc  time  to  come? — Are  for  the  prefent 
juftified  from  all  things  ?  Is  for  the  prefent  palTed  from 
death  unto  life  ? 

Rev.  III.  5 ;  '^  He  that  overcemeth,  the  fame  fhall 
^'  be  clothed  in  white  raiment  ;  and  I  will  not  blot  out  his 
*^  na-nis  out  of  the  book  of  life",  but  I  w'lW  confefs  his  name 
''  before  my  Father,  and  before  his  angels."  Docs  not 
this  text  plainly  hold  forth,  that  the  names  of  all  who  do 
not  overcome,  fhall  bs  blotted  out  of  the  book  of  life  ;  and 
that  Chr/ft  will  not  confefs  their  names  before  the  Father, 
and  before  his  angels  ?  Chap.  XIII,  8 ;  *'  And  all  that 
^'  dwell  upon  the  earth  fhall  worfliip  him,  whofe  names  are 
*^  ivritten  in  the  book  of  life  of  the  Lamb,  (lain  from 
'^  the  foundation  of  the  world."  Chap.  XXI.  27  ; 
*'  And  there  fliall  in  no  wife  enter  into  it  any  thing 
*^  that  defileth,  neither  whatfoever  worketh  abomination, 
^*  or  maketli  a  lie  ;  but  they  which  are  ivritten  in  theLamb^s 
'*  book  of  life:'  Pfal.  LXIX.  27,  28;  ''  Add  iniquity  to 
**  their  iniquity,  and  let  them  not  com.e  into  thy  righteouf- 
^^  nefs.  Let  them  be  blotted  cut  of  the  book  of  the  living^  and 
^^  not  be  vjriiten  vjith  the  righteous :*  Now  will  any  be  fa- 
ved,  v/hofe  names  are  not  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of 
life?  In  the  quotation  from  Rev.  XXL  27,  it  is  expreflly 
alFerted,  that  no  one  who  defileth,  worketh  abomination, 
or  maketh  a  lie,  Ihall  enter  the  heavenly  city  ;  but  they  on- 
ly who  are  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life.  There- 
fore not  only  will  not  all  men  be  faved,  as  fome  will  be 
excluded  the  heavenly  city  ;  but  fome  men  have  not  their 
names  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life,  and  this  is  a  fur» 
ther  evidence,  that  all  will  not  be  faved. 

It  is  laid,  that  ^'  fniners  fliall  not  ftand  in  the  congrega- 
'^  tion  of  the  righteous,"  (Pfal.  I.  5,)  and  the  reprcfen- 
tation  in  the  parables  of  our  Lord,  is,  that  after  the  ge- 
neral judgment,  the  tares  and  chafF  fliall  be  no  more  mixed 
with  the?  v.  heat  5  nor   the    good  with  the  bad  iilh.     Nor 

is 


%f  tndlefs  Pumjhmsnii  28^ 

Is  there  any  intimation  that  the  tares  or  the  chaff  will  be-» 
come  wheat,  or  the  bad  putrid  lifli  become  good  ;  but  the 
contrary  is  plainly  implied  in  the  parables  themielves.  Be- 
(ides,  the  judgment  is  faid  to  be  ef'^rnal,  «  av.sv^  "^  doubtlefs 
with  refpecL  to  the  endlels  and  unchangeable  confequences. 
But  if  the  judgment  be  ftrictly  eternal  with  refpecl  to  its 
confequences,  the  puailhment  of  the  damned  will  be  with- 
out end. 

The  parables  before  mentioned  further  prove  endlefs 
punilhment,  as  they  reprefenc,  that  the  bad  fifli  are  cafi 
azuay  ;  that  the  tares  and  chaif  are  burnt  up.  How  is  this 
confiilent  with  their  final  fah'ation  and  happinefs  ? 

All  thofe  texts  which  declare,  that  thofe  who  die  im- 
penitent (hail  pertjhj  fliall  he  ccjt  aiuay,  iliall  be  reje^ed, 
be  defiroyed  he  loft^  &:c,  difprove  univerfal  falvation ;  as 
I  Cor.  I.  18;  '*  The  preaching  of  the  crofs  is  to  them. 
**   that  per'ijh,  foolifhnefs  ;  but  unto  us  who  ar«    Caved ^  i% 

is  the  power  of  God."     2  Pet   II.  12;   **   T'hefe  ihall 

utterly  periJJj  in  their  own  corruption.''      Lu]\e  iX.  25; 

For  what  is  a  man  advantaged,   if   he    gain   the    Vv'hole 

world,  and  lofe  himfelf,  or  be  caj}  azvay.''^  Heb.  VI. 
8  ;  '•  That  which  beareth  thorns  and  briers  is  reje^ed.^' 
2 Cor.  IV.  3  ;  ^^  If  our  gofpel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them 
''  that  are /yr.''  iTheff.'l.  8;  ''  Who  fliall  be  punilh- 
^'  ed  with  everlafting  defiruiTlion.''  Mat.  XXI.  44  ;  '^  On 
'^  whomfoever  it  Ihall  fall,  it  fliall  ^r/W  him  to  poiuder  ;'' 
&;c.  Sec.  Now  with  what  truth  or  propriety  can  thofe  be 
faid  to  peri  f/y^he  cajl  avjay,  be  rejeSled^  iejiroyed^  loft;  who 
are  all  finally  faved  ?  Perdition,  deftrurfion,  &c,  tire  ever 
in  fcripture  fet  in  oppofition  to  falvation,  and  are  repre- 
fented  to  be  inconliltent  with  it.  But  where  is  the  oppo- 
fition, if  thofe  who  perifli,  be  faved  too? 

Acts  III.  21  ;  ^*  Whom  the  heaven  muft  receive  un- 
^^  til  the  times  of  the  reftitution  of  all  things,  which  God 
*'  hath  fpoken  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets  fince 
*^  the  world  becran."  This  text  which  has  been  often 
cjuoted  as  a  proof  of  univerfal  falvation,  is,  I  conceive,  a 
clear  proof  of  the  contrary.  The  heaven  will  receive  and 
retain  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrifl^   until  the  time    fliall    corns 

P  p  when 

*  Which  word,  I  hope^  from,  iv-mf  has  been  already  dlf- 
<:^vered  in  the  hrueflgaiion  of  lis  true  fenfe,  I  hsive  a  right 
to  Qonpder  asufedin  ths  endlefs  finfe. 


290  Pojiilve  evidence 

when  all  thofe  things  fhall  be  reflored,  which  God,  by  tlfO 
mouths  of  all  his  prophets,  hath  declared,  t^vIoj*  »t^  «Attx»3-«y^ 
fliall  be  reftored,  which  things  doubtlefs  comprehend  alf 
things  which  ever  fliall  be  reftored.  But  our  Lord  Jeius 
Chriii  will  not  be  retained  in  heaven  longer  than  till  the 
general  judgment.  After  that  time  therefore,  nothing  will 
be  reftored.  But  it  is  granted  on  all  hands,  that  after 
that  time  the  wicked  will  be  in  mifery.  Therefore  they 
fhall  never  be  recovered  from  that  mifery. 

2  Pet.  III.  9  ;  ^'  The  Lord  is  not  flack  concerning  his 
*'  promife  (as  fome  men  count  flacknefs)  but  is  long  fuf-. 
^^  fering  to  us  ward,  not  willing  that  any  Ihould  perifh, 
*^  but  that  all  ihculd  come  to  repentance,"  alfo  hath  been- 
quoted  to  prove  univerfal  ialvation.  It  is  however  im- 
pertinent to  that  purpofe,  but  upon  tke  fuppofition  that 
the  word  ptr'ijh  means  endlefs  perdithn.  Not  even  any 
univerfalili  will  fay,  that  God  is  unwilling  that  thofe  who- 
die  in  impenitence  ihould  perifh /</r  a  luhile,  until  they  are 
brought  to  repentance,  or  until  they  fliall  have  fuffered 
the  juft  punifnment  of  their  fms.  But  if  perifh  in  this 
pafTage  mean  endlefs  perdition,  it  doubtlefs  means  the 
fame  in  all  thofe  texts  in  which  the  wicked  are  pofitively 
faid  to  perilh,  as  i.  Cor.  I.  18,  ^^  For  the  preaching  o£ 
**  the  crofs  is  to  them  that  perilh  foolifhnefs.'' 

Luke  XX.  35;  ^'  But  they  which  fliall  be  accounted 
^'  worthy  to  obtain' that  world,  and  the  refurre^lion  from. 
'^  the  dead,  neither  marry  ner  are  given  in  marriage." — 
Some  then  will  not  obtain  that  world,  and  therefore  will 
not  be  laved.  John  XVII.  9;  *'  I  pray  for  them  :  I  pray 
*'  not  for  the  w^orld,  but  for  them  which  thou  haft  given 
**  me,  for  they  are  thine."  But  are  any  to  be  faved,  for 
whom  our  Lord  does  not  make  inter ccflion  ?  Heb.  XII. 
15  ;  ^^  ^^  Looking  diligently  left  any  man  fail  of  the  grace 
*^  of  God."     Some  then  will  fail  of  that  grace. 

Prov.  I.  2^ — 29  ;  ^'  I  alfo  will  laugh  at  your  at  your 
*"  calamity  and  mock  when  your  fear  cometh  :  when  your 
"  fear  cometh  as  defolation,  and  your  deftruftion  cometh 
^'  as  a  whirlwind  :  when  diftrefs  and  anguifli  come  upon 
'^  you.  Then  (hyll  they  call  upon  me,  but/  luill  not  an- 
^^  fiver  ;  they  fhall  feek  me  early  but  they  Jhall  not  find 
^'  mey  If  God  fhall  never  anfwer  their  calls,  and  they 
iliall  never  find  God;  they  will  never  be  faved. — Pfalm 
CXII.    10  ;  '■''  The  defire  of  the  wicked  fliall  perifh."— 


df  endlefs  puriifloment,  5i^x 

Job  VIII.  13,  14;  ^^  The  hypocrite's  hope  fliall  pe- 
'*  rifh  :  whofe  hope  fliall  be  cut  off,  and  whole  truft  fliall 
*'  be  a  fpider^s  web." Prov.  X.  28  ;  ^*  The  expec- 
tation of  the  wieked  iljallperifh.'^  Chap.  XI.  7;  '^When 
a  wicked  man  dieth,  his  expeclation  fliall  perifii,  and  the 
hope  of  unjuft  men  perifheth."  Chap.  XXIX.  i  ; 
He  that  being  often  reproved  hardeneth  his  neck,  fliall 
^*  fuddenly  be  deftroyed,  and  that  without  remedy j"^  If 
all  men  arc  to  be  faved,  the  hope  and  expeftation  of  the 
wicked  are  not  cut  off,  do  not  perifh,  in  any  other  fenfc  than 
that  in  which  the  hope  and  expeftation  of  the  righteous  pe- 
rifn  and  are  cut  off.  The  wicked  may  expect  to  obtain  hap- 
pinefs  before  they  are  fufficiently  difciplined,  or  beforq  a 
certain  period.  So  may  the  righteous  expect  to  make  their 
tranfition  to  heaven  before  it  will  come.  This  expectation 
of  both  will  be  cut  off.  But  the  expeclation  which  the 
\vicked  have  of  final  happinefs,  will  never,  according  to 
Dr.  C^s  fyftem,  be  cutoff.  Nor,  according  to  the  fame 
fyftem,  can  it  be  true,  that  the  wicked  fhall  be  deflroyed 

-without    remedy. Prov.    XIV.   3a;    **  the   Vv'icked   is 

'^  driven  away  in  his  wickednefs  ;  b;3t  the  righteous  hath 
^'^  hope  in  his  death."  But  according  to  the  univcrfal 
fyftem,  the  wicked  hath  in  his  death  as  real  and  well 
founded  a  hope  as  the  hope  of  the  righteous.  Job  XI. 
20,  *'  Their  hope  fhall  be  as  the  giving  up  cf  the  ghoft." 
Chap.  XXVII.  8;  '<■  For  what  is  the  hope  of  the  hypo- 
"  crite,  though  he  hath  gained,  when  God  taketh  away 
''  his  foul?"  Phil.  in.  19  ;  ''  Whofe  end  is  deflruc- 
*^  tion."  ^But  if  all  men  be  finally  f^ived,  the  endo'iwo  man 
is  deftru^lion.     Heb.   VI.    8;   ^*  Whole  <f;;^  is  to  be  burn- 

«ff  ejd." 2  Cor.  XL.   15;   '^   Whofe  <f;?(^  is  according  to 

^'  theii'  works."  This  is  laid  of  the  minifters  of  fatan, 
whofe  works  are  certainlyevil.  Their  end  therefore  being- 
according  to  tlieir  works  mufl  be  evil  too.  How  tlien  can 
they  be  finally  faved?  If  it  Ihould  be  faid,  that  thefe 
texts  do  not  mean  the  /^/?  end  of  the  wicked;  this  would 
be  a  mere  affertion.  As  v.  ell  might  we  fay  that  Rom.  VI. 
22  ;  ^'  Ye  have;  your  fruit  unto  holinefs  and  the  end  everlaft- 
*'  ing  life,"  means  not  the  laft  end  of  the  righteous. 

The  fcripture  reprefents,  that  at  the  end  of  this  world, 
all  things  are  brought  to  ^;^  end.  i  Pet.  IV.  7;  ^'  But 
the  end  of  all  things  \s  at  hand,^^  n-^yiy.?.  Surely  this  can- 
not mean  that  the  end  of  all  things  will  take   place  after 


^^ 


es 


1292  Pojiiive  evidence 

ages  of  ages  to  facceed  the  end  cf  this  world.  A  period 
fo  diftant  is  never   in  Icripture    faid  to    be    at  hand',  nor 

coaid    this    with    propriety,  be  faid  of  fuch  a  period.-- 

Matt.  XXT¥.  14;  *'  I'his  gofpel  of  the  kingdom  fhallbc 
*'  preached  in  all  the  world,  for  a.  witnefs  to  all   nations  : 

^^   PAidthen.  ^y<f,  fiiall  the   end  come.'' But    when    all 

things  fiiall  have  come  to  their  ejtd.  they  will  be  in  a  fixed, 
imalterabie  Hate,  and  after  that,  there  can  be  no  pafTing; 
from  hell  to  heaven.  Nor  can  there  be  any  fuch  paifing 
^fter  Chrift  fhall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  the  Fa- 
ther. '1  o  this  Dr.  C.  agrees.  But  I  have  already  gi- 
ven my  reafons  for  believing  that  Chrid  will  deliver  up  the 
icingdom  to  the  Father,  ai  the  end  of  this  ^vorld  -^  and  for 
believing  that  i  Cor.  XV.  24,  muft  be  undeHtood  in  this 
fenfe,  and  that  according  to  Dr.  C's  explanation  cf  that 
text,  it  cannot  be  reconciled  with  Matt.  XIII.  40 — 44, 
and  other  paflagcs  of  fcripture. 

2  Cor.  VI.  2;  '*  Behold  no'w  is  the  accepted  time  ;  be- 
^'  hold,  now  is  the  day  of  falvation./'  Heb.  III.  7  ;  ^^  Tq 
^'  dayy  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your  hearts.'' 
But  if  the  greater  part  of  mankind  ihall  be  faved  out  of 
hell,  and  the  means  of  repentance  in  hell  be  far  more  con- 
ducive to  the  end,  tkan  the  beft  means  ufed  in  this  world, 
it  fliould  have  been  faid,  In  the  future  ftate  is  the  accept- 
ed time,   and  in  hell  will  be  the  day  of  falvatien. 

2  Cor.  IV ,  j8  ;  ^^  -The  things  which  are  feen,  are  tem- 
^'  poral ;  but  the  things  which  are  not  feen,  are  eternal.^* 
Ji  all  the  unfeen  things  of  the  fiitrfre  ftate  be  eternal,  the 
punifliment  of  the  damned  is  eternal.  And  eternal,  a.r.>v;«^ 
mult  in  this  inftance  mean  endlefs  :  otherwife  all  oppofiti- 
on  with  regard  to  duration,  between  things  feen,  and 
things  unfeen,  is  loft  ;  and  things  unfeen  are  as  truly  tem- 
poral, as  tilings  feen.  At  moft,  on  Dr.  .C's  principle  of 
conftruing  fcripture  ;  the  apoifle's  propofition  comes  to 
this  merely:  The  things  which  are  feen,  are  temporal, 
but  the  things  which  are  unfeen  are  to  continue  for  an  age. 
But  this  is  true  of  many  prefent  feen  things. 

The  promifes  of  tlie  gofpel  in  general  afford  an  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  endlefs  punifhmcnt. K.ev.  II.    11  ; 

^^  He  that  overcometh,  ihall  not  be  hurt  of  the  fccond 
^^  deatli."  I  jDrefume  all  will  grant,  that  this  prOmife  im- 
plies, that  all  wlio  do  not  overcome,  fiiall  be  hurt  of  the 
fecorid  death.     Therefore,  by  parity  of  reafon,  when  it  is 


proi 


\m 


fed 


t)f  endlefs  fiimjl?ment ,  293 

prom  ife  dill  the  fame  chapter,  '^  To  him  that  overcometh, 
**  I  will  give  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  life,  v  hich  is  in  the 
*'  midil  of  the  paradiie  of  God ;''  it  implies,  that  thofe 
who  do  not  overcome,  fhall  never  eat  of  that  tree.  *'  To 
*'  him  that  overcometh,  will  i  give  to  eat  of  the  hidden 
*'  manna,  and  will  give  him  a  white  (lone,"  &c,  im- 
plies, that  he  who  does  not  overcome,  fhall  never  eat  o^^  the 
hidden  manna,  fhall  never  receive  the  white  flone,  kc.  '^  Him 
'^  that  overcometh  will  I  make  a  pillar  in  the  temfie  of  my 
'*  God,  and  he  fliall  go  no  more  out,''  implies,  that  he 
who  does  not  overcome,  fliall  not  be  a  pillar  in  the  temple 
of  God.  '^  To  him  that  overcometh,  will  1  grant  to  fit 
*'  with  me  in  my  throne,"  implies,  that  he  who  doei  not 
overcome,  fliall  never  fit  in  Chriit's  throne,  'i  hefe  I  give 
as  a  fpecimen  only  of  the  proraifes,  and  of  the  argument 
which  they  afford. 

Finally,  if  all  fliall  be  faved,  why  have  not  Chrifr, 
and  thofe  who  wTote  by  the  infpiration  of  his  fpirit,  been 
cxphcit  in  the  matter  .^  Why  have  they  ufed  fo  many  ex- 
preiFions,  which  in  the  literal  fenfe  aflert  the  contrary  doc- 
trine? and  which  apparently  obfcure  the  truth,  and  blind 
the  eyes  of  the  readers  of  the  New  Tt^itament  ?  Efpeciul- 
ly,  if,  as  Dr.  C.  holds,  univerfal  falvation  he  fo  glorious  to 
God,  the  main  fubjecl  of  the  gofpel,  and  fo  necc'lfary  to 
vindicate  the  divine  character?  Surely  this  of  all  doctrines 
ought  to  have  been  indifputably  revealed,  ^x\d  not  one  hint 
given  to  the  contrary. 

Besides  thele  arguments  drawn  directly  from  texts  of 
fcripture  ;  I  fliall  mention  one  drawn  from  the  general  na- 
ture of  the  gofpel,  or  from  the  particular  doctrines  of  the 
gofpel,  acknowledged  by   both  parties  in  this  contj-overfy. 

Those  who  die  impenitent,  deferve  an  endlefs  punifli- 
ment.  The  proof  of  this  hath  been  attempted,  Chap.  VT. 
It  is  briefly  this  :  If  endlefs  punifliment  be  not  the  penal- 
ty threatened  in  the  law,  and  juftly  deferved  by  the  fin- 
ner,  no  account  can  pofiibly  be  given  of  the  penalty  ol  the 
law.  It  cannot  be  the  temporary  punifl[iment  actually  fuf- 
fered  by  the  damned  ;  becaufc  then  the  damned  would  be 
finally  faved  without  fbrgivenefs.  It  cannot  be  a  tem|-o- 
rary  punifliment  of  lefs  duration,  than  that  which  is  fuiTcr- 
ed  by  the  damned  ;  becaufc  on  that  fuppofitiorrthe  damned 
are  puiiiflied  more  than  they  deferve.  It  cannot  be  a  tem- 
porary punifliment  of  longer  duration,  than  that  which  the 
icriptures  abundantly  declare  the  dajiined  flijill  fulilr  ;   be- 

caufe 


^94  Pojitlve  evidence. 

caufe  no  fuch  puniilament  is  threatened  in  tKe  law,  oi*  i» 
any  part  of  fcripture.     It  nmVi  therefore  be  an  endlefs  pu- 

niihment. This   endlefs  punilhment  threatened  in  the 

law,  is  not  annihilation,  but  endlefs  inifery  ;  becaufe  if  it 
vere  annihilation,  none  of  the  damned,  on  fuppofition, 
that  they  are  all  iinaliy  faved,  will  be  punifhed  with  the 
curfe  of  the  law,  or  which  is  the  fame, with  the  puniiliment 
which  they  jaftly  defervc.  But  both  the  fcripture  and 
Dr.  C.  abundantly  hold,  that  the  damned  will  be  puniflied 
as  much  as  they  delerve,  as  hath  been  fhewn  Chap.  III. 
But  for  the  full  proof,  that  the  punifhment  of  hell  is  not 
anaihikition.  1  muil  refer  the  reader  to  Chap.  V.  If  the 
€ndlefs  punifhment  threitened  in  the  law,  and  defervedby 
the  v/icked,  be  not  annihilation,  it  muft  be  endlefs  mifery. 
But  whatever  puni/liment  the  wicked  juftly  defervc,  they 
will  in  fad  fulfer  ;  they  will  have  to  pay  the  uttermoil 
farthing  ;  they  will  fuAer  judgment  without  mercy.  There- 
fore, thsy  will  faffer  not  only  an  endlefs  punifhment,  but 
an  endlefs  mifery,  or  torment. 

1  -TE  fame  argument  is  a  little  diiFerently  ftated  thus  ; 
Dr.  C.  allows,  that  if  the  puniihment  of  the  damned  be  in- 
tended to  fatisfy  /niiice,  it  is  impolTible  all  men  ihould  be 
faved.*  He  aifo  holds  abundantly,  that  it  is  impollible,, 
that  any  flnner  fliould  be  jufliiied  or  faved  *^  on  the  foot  of 
"  law.''  He  equally  holds  this  with  regard  to  the  moral 
law,  ^^  the  law  written  in  men's  hearts,"  ^^  the  natural 
^'  law,"'  and  the  law  as  prornulged  in  the  gofpel  by  Jefus 
*'  Chrill  and  his  apoftlcs,"  as  with  regard  to  the  ^^Mo- 
"  faic  law."f  He  alfo  holds,  that  ^'  the  lav/  of  God  is 
^'  a  perfect  rule  of  righteoufnefs."  Now  if  it  be  impodi- 
ble  that  an}''  linncr  be  juftined  by  the  moral  law,  then  eve- 
ry flnner  is,  and  muft  be  condemned  by  it,  and  from  that 
condemnation  he  can  never  be  acquitted  by  the  law.  If  it 
be  impofhble  that  any  finner  be  faved  by  that  law,  then  on 
the  footing  of  that  lav/,  every  finner  muft  be  excluded 
from  falvation. 

But  this  law  is  '^  a  perfect  rule  of  righteoufnefs." 
Therefore  perfed  righteoufnefs,  or  ftrict  diltributive  juf- 
tice,  will  never  admit  of  the  falvation  of  any  finner;  but 
every  finner  juftly  deferves  to  be  er.dlefsly  excluded  from 

falvatioi-i. Again,  a  puniUnnent  which  fatisiiesjuftice,  is 

one  which  is  perfectly  juft   and  deferved   by   the  finner. 

Therefore^ 

5'  P,  II.     f  See  12  ferm.  P.  4,  &c» 


o/  endkfs  Punijhmenf,  ip^ 

Therefore,  if  the  fmner  be  puniflicd  accordino-  to  his  de- 
fert,  he  can  never  be  faved. — But  both  the  fcriptures  and 
JDr.  C.  hold,  that  the  damned  will  be  puniihed  according 
to  their  deferts ;  therefore  they  will  never  be  faved. 


CONCLUSION. 

1HAVE  now  finifhed  a  work  which  has  been  attended 
with  confiderable  labour  to  me,  and  with  fome  to  the 
reader  v/ho  has  perufedthe  whole.  I  am  fenfible  that  con- 
ti-overfial  writers  often  mifunderftand  each  other,  and 
therefore  often  fpend  their  own  time  and  labour,  and  the 
time  of  their  readers  for  nought.  I  have  been  aware  of 
the  danger  of  this,  and  have  endeavoured  to  my  utmoft: 
to  avoid  it:  how  fuceefsfully,  muft  be  fubmitted.  I 
have  often  wiTned  for  an  opportunity  of  converfation  with 
fome  fenfible  and  thorough  believer  in  Dr.  C^s  fcheme^ 
that  I  might  obtain  explanation  of  fome  things,  to  me  un- 
accountable. But  I  have  not  been  favoured  with  fuch  an 
opportunity.  I  have  endeavoured  to  meet  the  Doctor's 
chief  arguments,  and  not  to  carp  at  particulars  which  are 
of  no  importance  to  the  fcheme,  and  have  no-t  delignedly 
Ihunned  any  argument  which  appeared  to  me  to  be  import- 
ant, and  not  implied  in  other  arguments  particularly 
noticed.  I  hope  that  whoever  fliall  undertake  the  confu- 
tation of  what  is  now*  offered  to  the  public,  will  treat  it  with 
the  fame  candour.  In  a  work  of  this  length,  and  on  a 
fubjecl  of  fuch  intricacy,  it  would  be  flrange  indeed  if  there 
were  not  fome  flips  which  would  give  advantage  to  an  an- 
tagonifl;  yet  thofe  flips  may  not  aifedl  the  main  queftion. 
If  any  man  fliall  write  to  point  out  fuch  errata,  it  will 
hardly  be  worth  while  for  me  to  trouble  either  myfelf  or 
the  world  with  a  reply.  But  if  any  y-entleman  will  can- 
didly point  out  the  fallacy  of  the  main  argUif.ents,  on  which 
I  have  refted  what  I  fully  believe  to  be  truth ;  however  I 
aiay  be  affefted  by  it,  I  doubt  net  but  that  the  public  will 
have  the  candour  ingenuoufly  to  acknowledge  it.  If  on 
the  contrary  his  reply  Ihall  confift  chiefly  of  declamation 
and  warm  addrelTes   to  the  paiTions    and   imaginations   of 

mankind, 


t^6  ConcluJiQUf 

3>iankind,  patlietical  and  frightful  reprefentatlons  of  the 
to!  intents  of  the  damned,  interlarded  with  farcaftic  fleprs 
and  other  effays  at  wit  ;  I  doubt  not  the  fame  candid  pub  k 
lie  will  properly  notice  it,  and  draw  an  inference  not  very 
favourable  to  the  caufe  which  is  to  be  fupported  by  fuch 
auxiliaries.     Such    artifices   are  unworthy  of  theologians, 

philofophers   and  any  inquirers  after  truth. 1  hope 

whoever  undertakes  a  reply,  will  tell  us  what  punifhment 
lin  jullly  deferves;  what  is  the  penalty  of  the  moral 
law  ;  or  that  curfe  of  the  law  from  which  Chrift  hath  re- 
deemed us.*  I  hope  he  will  further  inform  us  whether  all 
men  (hall  befaved  in  the  way  of  forgivenefs.  If  they  be,  he 
will  reconcile  that  mode  of  the  falvationof  allmenwiththofe 
declarations  of  fcripture  which  aflert,  that  the  wicked  fliall 
be  puniflied  according  to  their  works,  ihall  have  judgment 
without  mercy,  and  ihall  pay  the  uttermofl  farthing.  If 
it  Ihall  be  his  opinion,  that  the  damned  will  be  punilhed  ac- 
cording to  their  demerits,  and  then  be  faved  without  for- 
givenefs, it  is  to  be  hoped  he  will  reconcile  this  idea  with 
the  whole  New  Teftament,  which  every  where  reprefents, 
that  all  who  are  iaved,are  faved  in  the  way  of  forgivenefs. 
If  he  Ihall  hold,  that  *;ft)Cicc,  eternal^  «/«  Isy  ^^lav^.^  forever, 
and  f.;  '(5^:  ctioDvsL^  '^av  Aiuiuiy J  forever  and  ever,  generally  in 
the  fcripture  mean  a  limited  duration,  let  him  point  out 
the  inllances  of  that  uie  of  them,  that  they  may  be  com- 
pared with  thole  inilances  in  which  they  are  ufed  in    the 

endlefs  fenie. But-  I  need  not   enumerate  the   various 

particulars,  which  ought  to  be  minutely  and  diftindly  con- 
lid;n'ed,  in  a  candid  and  judicious  difcuflion  of  this  impor- 
tant qneftion. 

I  HAV^.  no  apprehenfion,  that  the  doftrine  of  endlefs 
punilhment  will  fuffer  at  all  by  a  thorough  difcuflion.  In 
the  courfe  of  the  difquiiition  many  may  be  perverted  to 
fatal  error  ;  yet  the  final  refult  will  be  the  more  clear  elu- 
cidation of  the  truth.  However  ^*  many  may  run  to  and 
'*   fro,  yet  knowledge  ihall  be  increaied." 

Finally,  if  any  man,  after  a  careful  perufal  of  what 
has  been,  or  may  be  offered,  on  both  ildes  of  this  im- 
portant 

*  Dr.  C,  explains  Gal.  Ill,  lo,  to  mean  the  curfe  nf 
the  mural  law,  or  the  lavj  under  -which  ail  ".neii  are;  I2 
Sermons,  p.    ij. 


Conclujiorti  13,0/ 

portant  queftlon,  fhall  be  in  doubt  on  which  fide  the  truth 
lies  ;  it  will  certainly  be  moft  prudent  and  fafe  for  him  tb 
ad  as  he  would,  if  he  fully  believed  endlefs  punifhment ; 
it  will  be  moft  prudent  and  fafe  for  him  to  yield  a  cordial 
compliance  with  the  gofpel,  in  repentance,  faith  and  obe- 
dience. Then  he  will  be  fafe  on  either  fuppofition.  But 
if  he  truft  tcj  the  flattering  doctrine,  that  all  are  finally  to 
be  laved,  and  in  this  prefumption  fhall  neglect  the  gofpel, 
its  invitations  and  requirements  ;  and  it  fliall  finally  prove^ 
that  that  dodtrine  is  a  mere  imagination  of  men  ;  alas  !  he 
is  loft ;  irrecoverably  loft :  while  thofe  who  receive  the 
gofpel  with  ^^  the  obedience  of  faith,"  fliall  through  the 
blood  of  atonement,  ^'  have  right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and 
*"'  ihall  enter  in  through  the  gates  into  the  City.'^ 


APPENDIX; 


O  q 


aqS  Remarks  on  Bijhof  Newton,' 


APPENDIX, 

Containing  re^narks  on  fever al  authors. 

I.    "O  EMARKS    on   Bifliop  Newton's  DiiTertation  oi* 
x\.  the  final  State  and  Condition  of  Men,  contain- 
ed in  Vol.  Vl.  of  his  works,  page  325,  &c. 

N.  D.  In  page  24  this  dijjertation  luas  referred  to,  as 
quoted  in  the  Monthly  Reviezu.  The  reafon  luas,  I  had  not 
then  feen  the  Difj^ert aiion  iifelf 

The  Bilhop  held,  that  all  the  damned  will  be  punifhed 
acconling  to  their  demerits ;  as  may  appear  by  the  follow- 

ng  palTages  :  '*  There  will  be    different    degrees  of 

happinef's  ormifery,  in  proportion,  to  their  different  ccn- 
diic^  and  behaviour  in  this  world.  As  nothing  is  jufter 
and  more  equitable  in  itfelf,  fo  nothing  is  clearer  and 
more  demonlirable  from  fcripture.  Shall  not  the  judge 
of  all  the  earth  do  right,  in  every  fingle  inflance,  as 
well  as  in  the  general  account  ?  It  is  not  only  agreea- 
ble to  the  iirft  principles  of  reafon,  but  may  alfo  be  c©n- 
linned  by  the  mcA:- exprefs  teflimonies  of  revelation.''^ 
— <^  Our  Saviour  threateneth  diiterent  punifliments  to 
the  v.'ickcd,  as  he  promifeth  different  rewards  to  the 
righteous,  greater  cr  lefs,  according'  to  the  nature  and 
qualities  of  their  aliens  J' ^  ^'  It  is  evident  then  and 
undeniable,  that  every  man  fliall  receive  his  own  reward 
or  puniihinent,  according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whether 
it  he  good  or  bad. ''.J:  **  It  muft  be  then  admitted,  that 
God  hath  threatened  everiafiing  mifery  to  the  wicked, 
as  plainly  and  poiitively  as  he  hath  promifed  everlafting 
happinefs  to  the  righteous.  He  hath  fairly  fet  before 
us  life  and  death,  bleffmtr  and  curhng,  eternal  happinefs 
as  well  as  everlallln.o-  miferv,  the  one  to  balance  the  o- 
ther.  Is  there  any  injullice  in  this  ?  Are  not  the  terms 
and  conditions  equal  ?   And  if  men  will  choofe  curfmg 

'^  rather 

■■■^  P.    -L\i,      t  P.  347.      1  Ibid. 


Remarks  0)1  Bijhop  Newton  loa 

^^  rather  than  bleiTmg,  and  voluntarily  incur  evcrlafting 
'*  milery,  when  they  might  as  eafily  attain  eternal  hanpi- 
i'  nefs,  whom  have  they  to  complain  of,  cr  whom  c?.n 
*''  they  arraign  of  unequal  proceeding  but  themfclves  ? 
^'  (Ezek.  XVIII.  29.)  Are  not  my  ways  eqnal?  Are  not 
*•  your  ways  unequal,  faith  the  Lord  ?  You  cannot  then 
^'  complain  of  injuiiice,  for  the  rewards  and  puniflimcnts 
'*  are  equal  :  and  it  was  really  neceiTary,  that  thefe  rewards 
*^  and  puniihments  fliould  be  cverlaflmg.'*^ — Would  any 
^^  thing  lefs  than  everlafting  rewards  and  punilhinentj;  be 
**  fuiScient  to  encourage  the  good,  to  deter  the  bad,  and 
^^  fecure  obedience  to  the  divine  commands  :-|--- — —How 
^^  then  can  you  complain,  that  God  is  a-j  arbitrary  gover- 
^'  nor,   and  annexeth  greater  penalties    to    his  laws  than 

*'   are  necelliiry. xou  cannot  then  complain,   that  the 

'^  fandion  of  eternal  penalties  is  unreafonable,  for  you  fee 
^'  plainly,  that  it  is  no  more  than  is  abfolutely  neceffary. 
*'  But  poflibly  you  may  think,  though  it  m.ay  be  necelTary 
^'  in  the  government  of  this  world  for  fuch  things  to  be 
^'  denounced  by  God,  and  believed  by  man,  yet  there 
''  may  not  be  the  like  neceuity  for  infiiding  them  in  the 
'*  world  to  come:  God  is  not  obliged  to  execute  his 
'^  threatenings,  as  he  is  to  make  good  his  promifes.  But 
'•  v.'hy  is  he  not  obliged  to  perform  the  one  as  well  as  the 
^'  .other  ?  Kis  threatenino-s  are  never,  like  tliofe  of  men, 
^^  maderadily,  never  founded  in  pallicn  cr  caprice,  that 
''  it  iliould  be  better  not  to  execute,  than  execute  them, 

'^  If  God  will  not  execute  as  well   as    threaten,  why 

^^  doth  he  threaten   at  all?-^ Is  it    not  more  fuitable  to 

^^  the  character  of  a  God  of  truth,  and  becoming  the  {im- 
*^  plicity  and  fincerity  of  a  divine  revelation,  to  declare 
'^  the  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  and  leave  it  to 
^'  work  upon  men  as  it  can,  rather  than  denounce  in  the 
^^  moil  jblemn  m^anner  v/hat  was  never  intended,  and  ne- 
''  ver  fliall  come  to  pafs,  and  fo  endeavour  to  alarm  them 
"'•   with  falfe  fears,   and  to  work  upon  them  with  falfe  per- 

*•  fuaiions,   which  have  nothing  to    anfwer  them?"§ 

*'  Gcd  mufc  be  juft  as  well  as  merciful.  Ke  can  never  ex- 
'•  ercife  one  of  his  attributes  fo  as  to  craih  or  interfere  with 
*^   another/' II 

On  thefe  quotations  it   may  be  reninrked,  that  the  Bi-- 
ihop  plainly  held,   that  endlefs  mifery  is    threatened  ;    ioi- 


ne 


*P.  356,     iP:35;.     U'.  357.  358-     li  P- 3?8 


^®c  Remarks  on  Bijloop  Newton. 

he  always  ufes  the  word  everlafting  in  the  endlefs  fenfe, 
and  believed  this  to  be  the  fcriptural  fenfe  of  it,  when 
applied  to  future  puniihment.*  He  alfo  rejected  the  doc- 
trine of  annihilation,  f  Now  then  his  opinion  was  either,, 
that  endlefs  mifery  is  unconditionally  threatened  to  all  who 
die  impenitent;  or  that  it  is  threatened  to  them  on  condi- 
tion of  their  continued  impenitence  in  the  future  world. 
If  it  be  threatened  unconditionally,  it  follows,  (i)  That 
endlefs  mifery  is  the  juft  puniHiment  of  the  fins  committed 
in  this  life.  For  who  will  pretend,  that  God  hath  made 
a  law,  which  contains  an  unjuit  penalty?  This  would  be 
equally  inconfiilent  wath  the  divine  moral  reftitude,  as  to 
make  a  law  containing  unjuft  or  unrisalonable  precepts;  or 
to  execute  the  unjuit  penalty.  But  if  this  were  the  opi- 
nion of  the  Bilhop,  to  be  confiftent  he  muft  have  given  up 
the  doftrine  of  univerfal  falvation,  to  eflabhfn  which  he 
'^vrote  his  Differtation.  For  he  not  only  declares  in  the 
paiTages  already  quoted,  that  ^^  God  muft  be  jufi:  as  well 
'^^  as  merciful,  and  can  never  exercife  one  of  his  attributes 
*^  fo  as  to  interfere  with  another  ;^'  and  *'  that  his  threat- 
^^  enings  are  never  like  thofe  of  men,  made  railily,  never 
^^  founded  in  pafTion  or  caprice,  that  it  fhouid  be  better 
'^  not  to  execute,  than  execute  them  ;'^:{:  but  ||according 
to  Mat.  V.  26,  and  XVIil.  34,  he  acknowledges,  that 
the  damned  fliall  pay  the  uttermoit  farthing,    and    all   that 

is  due, (2)  It  will  follow,    that  fm    is   an    infinite  evil. 

Certainly  that  moral  evil  which  deferves  an  infinite  natu- 
ral evil  to  be  infiifted  by  v/ay  of  puniihment,  is  an  infinite- 
ly ili-deferving  moral  evil  ;  this  is  plain  by  the  very  terms  : 
and  a  moral  evil,  which  is  infinitely  ill-deferving,  is  all  that 
is  meant  by  the  infinite  evil  of  fm.  Yet  this  lentiment  he 
reprobates  in  the  ftrongeft  terms. 

But  if  thofe  who  die  impenitent  be  threatened  with 
endlefs  mifery,  cu  conditmt  of  their  coniimied  impenitence 
only  ;  then  a  mere  falutary  diicipline  is  all  the  puniflimcnt 
-svhich  any  fmner  deferves  according  to  Uriel  jaftice.  The 
law  is  the  rule  of  righteoufnefs  ;  the  penalty  of  that  is 
adequate  to  the  demand  of  jufcice  :  and  if  the  penalty  of 
that  be  an  endlefs  punishment  unlefs  the  linncr  Jhall  re- 
pent, the  penalty  in  reality  is  fo  much  punifnment  only  as 
ihail  lead  the  linner  to  repentance  ;   and  this  falutary  and 

necelTary 

^  5<»eP.  355.     i  Sec  P.  349-     ?  P-  358-     I!  P-  S^^. 


Remarks  on  B'ljhop  Newton.  goi 

necefTaiy  difcipline  is  the  whole  penalty  or  curfc    of  the 
law.  ' 

That  this  was  really  the  opinion  of  the  Bi (hop  may  ap- 
pear from  the  following  expreihons  :  '*  If  God  v  ill  not 
*•'  execute  as  well  as  threaten,  why  doth  he  threaten  ac 
*'  all?  It  muft  be  faid,  to  reclaim  a  fmner  ;  and  it  is  ai- 
'•  lowed  that  if  thelinncr  be  reclaimed,  tiie  end  is  obtain- 
^'  ed,  and  the  threatening  is  voided  of  courfe."*-*— 
*^   Several  of  the  fathers  conceived  the  fire  of  hell  to  be  a 

^'  purging  as  well  as  a  penal  fire But  this  penal  purg- 

^^  ing  fire  is  very  different  from  the  purgatory  of  the 
'^  church  of  Pvome  ;   for   that  is    not   once    mentioned    in 

f^  fcripture,  but  this  is  often  repeated. '^-j- ^',  If  theof- 

''  fender  be  corrected  and  reformed,  the  fu'il  e«d  is  fully 
'^  anfwercd,  and  the  punifhment  fliould  ceafe  of  courfe. 
^'  If  he  flill  remain  incorrigible,  it  is  fitting  that  the  pu- 
^'  nifliment  fhould  be  continued  and  increafed,  till  it  have 
^^  the  due  efFec!.''.-!: •'''   It  is  jult,    and  wile,   and  good, 

''  and  even  merciful,  to  correft  a  {inner  as  lono;  as  he  de- 

...  ^ 

'^   ferves   correction,  to   chafrife   him   into   a    Icnfe  of  his 

*'  guilt,  to  whip  and  fcourge  him,  as  I  may  fay,  out  of  his 

**   faults. ''II ^^   If  tliey  will  not  repent,   why  f!]ould  he 

*^  not   execute   upon   them    the    threatenings  which  they 

*'  have  defpifed  ?'' ^'   This  is  the  only    means   of  ef- 

*^  caping,  there  is  none  oiher  cond'itlonor  refervatiiyri.^^^ — 

''   This  1  conceive  to  be  the  true  notion  of  the   eternity  of 

^^  rewards  and  punifhments.     Righteoufncfs   will  be  for- 

^'   ever  happy  and   glorified,   v/ickednefs    will    be   forever 

*^  miferable  and  tormented.     But  if  rivhteoufhefs  fhould 

*^  fliould  become  wickednefs,   and  v/ickednefs   fhould  be- 

^'  come  righteoufnefs — with  the  change  of  their  nature, 

^^   their  flate  and  condition  would  be  changed  tco."4- 

BuT  wher&inallthe  fcriptures  is  any  fuch  condition  men- 
tioned-in  the  account  of  future  puniihment  ?  It  is  not  faid 
depart  ye  curfed  into  fire  which  fhall  be  everlaftingunlefs  ye 
repent  :  Thefe  fliall  go  away  into  puniilnnent  v.  jiich  fliall  be 
everlafling  unlefs  tliey  repent  :  Their  worm  fhall  not 
die  unlefs  they  repent  ;  They  cannot  pafs  the  grc:;t 
gulf  unlefs  they  repent  :   The  iinoke  of  their  torment  fliall 

afcend  up  forever  and   ever,   unlefs  tliey  repent. And 

to  fay  that  the  meaning  of  the  fcripture  \v>  thus  conditional, 
is,to  aflert  without  any  proof  or  evider.ce  :  nor  does  the 
Bifhop  pretend  to  produce  r^ny.  .  The 

*  P.  358.   fP,  37c>.   +  P.  365.    '\IhlcL  ^P.  559,  \JhU, 


^c%  Remarks  on  BiJJjop  Newton. 

The  Bilhop  argues  univerfal  falvation  in  this  manner, 
'^  He  would  have  all  men  to  be  faved  ;  and  whence  then 
*'  arifeth  the  obftraction  to  liis  good  will  and  pleafure,  or 
*^  how  rometh    it  to  pafs,    that  his    gracious  purpofcs  arc 

*'  ever  defeated  ?''(j So  it  may  be  faid,  "  God   is  not 

*^  willing  that  any  ihould  pcriiii,  but  that  all  fliouid  come 
'^  to  repentance,  and  no^\i  commandeth  all  men  every 
^'  where  to  repent."  It  is  the  vv'ili  of  God  that  all-man- 
kind ihould  repent  woxy  this  vsry  day.  Yet  all  mankind  do 
not  repent  this  very  day.  Whence  then  arifeth  the  ob- 
fcruCLion  to  his  good  will  and  pleafure,  or  how  cometh  it 
to  pafs  that  his  gracious  purpoi'es  are  defeated  ? 

*^  Nothing,"  fays  the  Bifnop,  ^^  is  more  contrariant 
^'  to  the  divine  nature  and  attributes,  than  for  God  to  be- 
^^  flow  exiftence  on  any  beings,  whofe  deftiny  he  fore- 
''  knows  muil  terminate  in  wrctchednefs  vv'ithout  recove- 
*'  ry."f  The  truth  of  this  propofition  depends  on  the 
following  principle,  That  it  is  not^  nor  can  be,  in  any  cafe, 
confiftent  with  the  general  good  implying  the  glory  of  God, 
that  a  linner  fliould  be  mifcrable  Vv^ithout  end.  For  if  God 
forefee  that  the  endlefs  mifery  of  a  man  will  be  fubfervient 
to  the  general  good ;  there  is  notking  contrariant  to  i»he 
divine  nature,  t©  beitov/  exiilence  upon  him,  though  he 
foreknow  that  he  Vv'ill  fin,  that  he  vv'ili  deferve  endieis  mi- 
fery, and  that  his  delliny  will  terminate  in  wrctchednefs 
without  recovery. 

We.  find  that  there  a^e  in  fa 61  temporary  miferies  in  the 
world.  On  what  principle  can  thefe  be  reconciled  with 
the  divine  attributes?  If  it  be  anfwered,  on  the  iole  prin- 
ciple, that  they  will  ilTus  in  the  perfonal  good  of  the  pa- 
tients ;  the  reply  is,  (i.)  That  this  will  be  facl  v/ants 
proof.  It  is  by  nq  means  evident,  that  God  aims  at  the 
perfonal  good  of  every  individual  in  all  his  difpenfations, 
hov/ever  diftreihng  ;  it  is  not  evident  that  the  inhabitants 
of  the  old  v/orld,  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  &c.  are  more 
happy  in  the  whole  of  their  exiflence,  than  if  they  had  li- 
ved and  died  like  other  men.—-^ — -(2.)  Efpecially  it  is  not 
evident,  that  all  the  fin  and  wickednefs  which  any  man 
commits  will  finally  make  him  a  mere  happy  man,  than  lie 
would  have  been,  if  he  had  committed  no  im.  If  God  may 
without  a  view  to  promote  the  perfonal  good  of  a  man, 
permit  him  to  fall  into  fm,  v/hy  may  he  not  without  a  view 

tf 

ilP.  367.     \lhhl 


Remarks  on  Bljhop  Newton.  303, 

to  the  fame  obje<ft,  punifh  him  for  that  fm  ?  To  fay  that 
God  could  not  confiftently  with  the  moral  agency  of  the  man, 
prevent  his  falling  into  fm,  will  infer  that  God  cannot  con- 
liffcently  with  the  moral  agency  of  the  man^  certainly  and  in- 

faUibly  lead  him  to  repentance. (3.)  The  principle  new 

under  coniideration  implies  that  there  is  not  now  nor  ever 
has  been  in  the  univerfe,  any  thing  which  on  the  whole 
is  a  real  evil  to  any  man  conlidered  in  his  individual  capa- 
city :  that  no  man  ever  v/as  or  ever  will  be  the  fubjed  of 
any  curfe,  or  any  calamity  which  any  man,  with  a  view  to 
his  own  happinefs  only,  ihould  wifh  t©  avoid. 

Or  if  temporary  calamities  be  reconciled  with  the  di- 
vine attributes  on  this  principle,  that  they  are  fubfervient 
to  the  general  good  ;  on  the  fame  principle  we  reconcile 
with    the    divine  attributes,    the    endlefs    mifery    of  the 

damned, This  v/hole  argument  depends  on  the  fuppo- 

iltion,  that  the  final  miiery  of  any  linner  cannot  be  fubfer- 
vient to  the  general  good.  To  take  this  for  granted  is  in- 
tolerable. 

As  we  have  feen,  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  with  the 
Bifhop,  that-fuch  a  punifnment  as  is  fufiicient  to  lead  a  (in- 
ner to  repentance,  is  all  which  is  threatened  in  fcriprurc. 
This  then  is  the  penalty  or  curfe  of  the  divine  law  :  this 
is  the  utmoil  which  ftricl:  juflice  will  admit  :  and  he  on  this 
fuppofition  jufrly  ailerts,  **  that  fome  time  or  other  fatis- 
**  fadion  may  be  made,  the  debt  of  iin  may  bedifcharged, 
'^  and  the  f inner  himfelf  releafed  out  of  prifon.^'  f 
— This  is  utterly  incontiftent  with  the  falvation  of  the 
damned  in  the  way  of  forgivenefs.  Yet  his  texts  to  prove 
univerfal  falvation,  imply  laivation  in  the  v/ay  of  forgive- 
nefs only.  After  quoting  Exod.  XXXIV.  6,  7  ;  *'  The 
*'  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  long-fuf- 
''  fering  and  abundant  in  goodnefs  and  truth,  keeping 
*^  mercy  for  thoufands,  forgiving  iniquity  and  tranfgrei- 
*'  fion  and  fm  /'  he  adds,  *'  But  how  can  fuch  attributes 
^^  contifl:  with  a  fydem  of  irrevocable  vengeance  for  thou- 
*'  fands,  tranfgreilions never  to  be  forgiven,'^  &:c  ?  To 
which  I  anfwer,  They  can  juft  as  Avell  confift  with  fuch  a 
fyftem,  as  with  Biftop  Newton's  fyftem,  v/hich  implies 
that  the  damned  fuiter  all  that  they  deferve  ;  for  what  is 
this,  but  irrevocable  vengeance  to  the  highefc  degree  ?  And 
furely  the  tranfgrefTions  of  thofc  v.'lio  fuffer  fuch  a  punifh- 
ment  are  never  forgiven. 

P.    t  ^if''^.  ^'^ 


jd4  Rernat-ki  en  Blfhop  Newton.' 

It  is  abfurd  therefore  for  him  to  argue  from  grace,  cohi^ 
pafTion,   the  divine  readinefs  to  forgive,   &c.     And  equally 

abfurd  to  argue  as  he  does  from  the  merits  of  Chrifl 

For  do  they  obtain  any  relief  by  Chrift,  who  themfelves 
fuffer  the  whole  penalty  of  the  law,  and  thus  make  fatis- 
fa^lion  for  their  own  fms  ?  Yet  he  abundantly  holds  the 
falvation  of  all  men  by  the  merits  of  Chrift  :  as  in  the  fol- 
lowing palTages  out  of  many :  ^Mt  is  the  declared  end  and 
''  purpofe  of  our  blelTed  Saviour's  coming  into  the  world, 

*'   to  recover  and  to  redeem  loft  mankind. How  ofteii 

*'  is  hefty  led  the  Saviour  of  the  World  in  the  full  extent 

**  and  meaning  of  the  wordsr"| *^  His  very  enemies 

*^  are  reconciled  to  God  by  the  merit  diVid.  fufferlngs  of  his 

*'  beloved  Son/'|| ''  He  only  requires  us  to  exert  our 

**  beft  endeavours,  and  the  merits  of  our  Saviotir  will 
^'  atune  for  the  refi.^^^ 

'^  To  fuppofe  that  a  man's  happinefs  or  mifery  to  all 
*^  eternity  ihould  abfolutely  and  unchangeably  be  fi^-ied  by 
*^  the  uncertain  beliaviour  of  a  few  years  in  this  life,  is  a 
*^  liippolition  even  more  unrealbnable  and  unnatural,  than 
*"'  that  a  man's  mind  and  manners  fhould  be  completely 
"  formed  in  his  cradle,  and  his  whole  future  fortune  and 
'*  condition  fliould  depend  upon  his  infancy  ;  infancy  be- 
'^  ingmuch  greater  in  proportion  to  the  few  years  of  this 
*'  life,  than  the  whole  of  this  life  to  eternity/'* — The  fame 
might  be  faid,  if  the  time  of  man's  probation  were  ever  fo 
long,  but  limited.  Thus;  To  fuppofe  that  a  man's  hap- 
pinefs or  mifery  to  all  eternity  fhould  be  unchangeably  fix- 
ed by  the  uncertain  behaviour  of, millions  of  millions  of 
^  ages,  is  a  fuppoiition  even  more  unreafonable,  than  that  a 
man's  mind  and  manners  Ihould  be  completely  formed  in 
his  cradle,  and  his  whole  future  fortune  and  condition  fliould 
depend  upon  his  infancy ;  infancy  being  much  greater  in 
proportion  to  the  fewyears  of  this  life,  than-millions  of  mil- 
lions of  ages  to  eternity. 

^^  K'OPv  could  even  his"  [God's]  '^  juftice  for  fhort- 
*'  lived  tranfgreflions  inliift  everlafting  puniihraent.'^|||| — 
But  how  long' lived  muft  the  tranfgreffions  be,  that  juftice 
may  confent  to  infiift  for  them  everlafting  punifhments  ? 
Let  them  be  ever  fo  long-lived,  provided  they  are  limited, 
they  are  ftill  innnitely  Ihort-lived  in  comparifon  with  an 
cverlaftino;  duration.  And  v.'ill  it  be  faid  that  the  tranfgref- 

llOA 

}  P.  382.  II  P.  383.  §  P.  387.    *P.  361%     nil  P.   3^8. 


Remarks  on  Reify,  n'Of 

fiori  muft  be  as  long-lived  as  the  punilhment,  and  that  juf- 
tice  will  not  admit  that  the  punilhmcnt  of  any  tranrgreiflon 
be  of  longer  continuance^  than  the  tranfgrefiion  was  in  the 
perpetration  ? 

*'  What  glory  to  God,  to  fee  a  number  of  his  crea- 
*^  turespUinged  in  the  depth  of  mifcry  ?  What  good-will 
''  towards  men,  to  confign  fo  many  of  them  to  everiafting 
*'  punifhments  ?''*  It  is  dcubtlefs  glcryto  God,  that  ihey 
be  plunged  into  the  depth  of  mifery,  if  both  they  defer  ve  it, 
and  it  be  fubfervient  to  the  good  of  the  univerfe  :  and  the 
gcfpel  is  a  revelation  of  divine  good-will  towards  men, 
though  many  of  them  rejed:  the  infinite  grace  and  eternal 
falvation  exhibited  in  that  revelation,  and  by  this  and  their 
other  iins  juftly  deferve  and  finally  bring  on  themfelves 
everlafting  punilhment. 

//.  j4  fezo   remarks  on  James  Kelly's  Treatife  on  Union, 

He  feems  to  hold,  that  all  m.ankind  were  from  eternity 
fo  united  to  Chrift,  that  he  and  they  make  properly  one 
whole  or  complex  perfon.  But  it  is  extremely  difficult  to 
determine  with  precifion  what  his  ideas  were.  I  fhall 
therefore  make  feveral  quotations  from  him,  and  fubjoin 
fuch  remarks  as  appear  pertinent.  **  It  doth  not  appear 
*^  how  God — could  punifh  fm  upon  Chrilt^  without  the 
'^  concurrence  of  rio-hteoufnefs  and  truth  :  nor  can  this 
'^  concurrence  be  proved^,  without  union  betvveen  Chrifb 
^*  and  thofe,  for  vv^hom  he  endured  the  crofs^ — —becaufe 
*'  contrary  to  truth,  which  declareth,  that  every  man 
*'  fhail  die  for /r/j*  oiu;?  fm.'^f — ^^  Such  an  union  between 
*^  Chrift  and  his  church,  as  gives  him  the  right  of  redemp- 
*^  tion,  and  brings  him  under  that  character,  which  is  ob- 
'^  noxious  tor  puniff^ment,  is  abfolutely  neceirary."j — 
*'  Without  the  confideration  of  union,  where  is  the  juHice 
^'  of  charcrino;  the  black  rebellion  and  cryinsr  n-uilt  ot 
^'  man,  upon  the  pure  and  fpotlefs  head  of  Jeius.^ji  "  om 
'^  is — a  crime — only  atoned  for— -b^/  the  death,  yea,  the 
*^  eternal  death  of  the  fmner  :  which  juiiice  muft  infii^H: 
before  it  can  be  properly  fatisiied ;  nor  can  it  poliibly 
admit  of  a  furety  here  ;  becaufe  it  can  only  punifh  him, 
whom  it  lirft  finds  guilty ;  and  not  by  reckoning  him, 
to  be  what  he  is  not,  according  to  human  quibbles,  but 

R  r  *^  according 

*  P.  3S2.      \V,  3.     %  Ibid.    iiP.-4,    - 


3o6'  Remarks  on  Relly^ 


'^  according  to  artlefs^  reafonable,  divine  equity ;  whick 
can  only  declare  fuch  guilty,  on  whom  the  fault  is  found, 
^^  and  can  only  find  the  fault  on  fuch  who  have  committed 
^'  it.  We  only  committed  the  fault;  upon  us  only  can  it 
'^  be  found.  Therefore,  without  fuch  an  union  betvv'een 
^^  Chrilt  and  us,  as  expofes  us  in  his  perfon,  to  judgment 
'^  and  condemnation,  the  ha^miony  of  the  divine  perfe(5li- 
'^'  ons  doth  not  appear  in  the  things  which  he  fuffered,  be- 
*'  caufe  contrary  to  truth  and  juHice/'*  He  largely  illuf- 
trates  this  union  betv/een  Chrill  and  his  church,  by  the 
union  between  the  head  and  members  in  the  natural  bo- 
dy, and  adds,  '^  The  union  and  harmony  of  the  body 
^'  renders  it  equitable  to  punifh  and  chaltife  the  whole  bo- 
^'  dy  in  one  member,  for  its  offence  in  another.  Becaufe 
^^,  if  one  member  fuiFer,  all  the  members  fuffer  with  it. 
*'  As  the  union  of  the  body  makes  it  equitable  to  puniili  the 
'^  head,  for  the  olFcnce  of  the  other  menibers ;  with  like 
*'  equity  do  the  members  participate  with  the  head,  in  all 
'^  its  honors  and  glory.  Thus  the  crowning  of  the  head,, 
"^  crov/ns  the  whole  man,  and  every  member  partakes  of 
'^  the  honor.*' 

These  quotations  may  ferve  to  give  an  idea  of  the  uni- 
on between  Chriil  and  mankind,  for  which  Mr,  Relly 
pleads.     I  now  proceed  to  the  follovv'ing  remarks. 

I.  It  appears  by  the  foregoing  quotations,  that  Relly 
held  fuch  an  union  betv/een  Chrilt  and  his  church,  that  he 
upon  the  ground  of  juftice  became  liable  to  puniihment  on 
account  of  their  fins.  Otherwife  the  fufferings  of  Chrift 
were  both  unjuft  and  contrary  to  truth  :  unjuft,  as  he  did 
not  deferve  them,  contrary  to  truth  as  the  divine  declara- 
tion is  *^  The  foul  that  fmneth  ihall  die.'' But  if  this 

be  true,  if  Chrift  Vv'as  liable  to  punifliment  on  the  ground 
ofjuilice,  diftributive  juftice  ;  then  Chriil  deferved  death 
as  m.uch  as  the  iinner.  In  his  fufferings  the  Father  did 
but  treat  him  accordins;  to  his  own  character  and  condudt ; 
he  did  but  caufe  him  to  eat  the  fruit  of  his  own  ways  and  to 
be  filled  with  his  own  devices  :  and  no  more  thanks  or  praife 
are  due  to  Chrift  on  account  of  his  fufferings,  than  are 
due  to  the  damned  fini;er,  on  account   of  his  enduring  the 

pains  of  hell. Befide  ;  how  contrary  is  this  to  the  icrip- 

ture  !  That  declares,  that  ''  Chrift  fuffered  the  ju/I  for 
'*  theunjuft;-'  that    *  Mae  was  holy,   harmlefs,  undefiled, 

"   and 
*  P.  4.      * 


Remarks  on  Relly.  ^07 


«• 


nd  feparate  from  finners  ;'*  That  «'  he  did  no  fin,   nei- 

*'  ther  was  guile  found  in  his  mouth." Now  if  Chrift 

was  a  *'  character  obnoxious  to  punifirment''  on  the  foot 
of  diftributive.juftice,  he  was  very  far  from  being  yzr^?,  and 
from  being  holy^  hannhfs,  iindefded  ;  he  did  jin,  and  guile 
vjas  found m  his  mouth.  Indeed  t!iis  is  no  more  than  R.el- 
]y  ailerts  in  the  above  quotation.;,  when  he  fays^  '*  thatjul- 
*^  tice  can  only  puniih  him  whom  it  finds  guilty  ;  not  by 
'^  reckonnig  him  what  he  is  not,  but  according-  to  artlefs 
^^  divine  equity,  which  can  only  find  the  fault  on  fuch  as 
^*  have  committed  it."  Therefore,  according  to  this, 
Chriffc  as  one  with  fumers,  committed  the  fault,  and  there- 
fore defervedly  fufFered  for  it. 

If  it  fhould  be  granted,  that  Chrift  did  not  himfelf  com- 
mit the  fault  or  iin,  for  which  he  fu-iered,  but  that  by  a 
v/ife,  fovereign,  divine  conftitution,  to  which  he  himfelf 
fully  confented,  he  fuifered  for  the  fms  of  others ;  this 
v/ould  be  to  give  up  all,  and  toacknov/ledge,  that  Chrift  did 
not  fuifer  for  fm  on  the  footing  of  diftributive  juftice. 

2.  It  appears  by  the  fame  quotations,  that  Reily  was 
TiOt  of  the  opinion,  that  Chrift  fuifered  in  confequence  of 
the  imputation  of  lin  to  him,  or  becaufe  he  was  the  furetv 
of  his  church  :  but  on  the  ground  of  his  proper  union  v.'ith 
men.  This  appears  by  thefe  words :  '^  Sin  is  a  crime  only 
^^  atoned  for  by  death,  which  juftice  muft  infiicl;  nor  can 
^'  it  poilibly  admit  of  2.  furety  here:  becaufe  it  can  only 
*^  punifli  him  whom  it  firft  finds  guilty  :  and  not  by 
^^  reckoning  him  to  be  what  he  is  not."  Yet  he  holds'*" 
that  Chrift  fuifered  on  the  ibie  ground  of  i'rnputaiion.  His 
words  are^  ^^  The  doclrine  of  union,  which  reprefents 
'^  Jefus  fuiFering  under  the  character  of  the  tinner,  doth 
^^  not  fuppofe  him  fuch- in  his  ovv^n  particular  perfon  ;  nay 
'^  ftroiio-ly  witnefTeth  the  contrary,    and  refpects  him  only 

^^  thus  *by  fuch  an  imputation  as   is  juft  and   true." Ir 

then  the  fufferings  of  Chrift  do  not  fuppofe  him  to  be  a  {in- 
ner *^  in  his  own  particular  perfon  ;"  how  can  this  be  re- 
conciled v/ith  what  is  quoted  above  from  p^ige  3d,  in  which 
he  argues,  that  unlefs  Chrift  be  one  with  thofe  for  whom 
he  died,  his  fufferings  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  Icrip- 
ture,  which  declares  that  every  man  fliall  die  tor  his  oiun 
fm  I   Or  with  v/hat  is  quoted  from  page  4th  which  declares, 

that 

J    P.   41. 


308  Remarks  on  Petitpierre, 

that  juflice  does  not  admit  of  a  furety,  or  of  reckoning 
Chrilt  to  be  what  he  is  not  ? 

3.  It  further  appears  by  the  fame  quotations,  thatRelly 
confiders  Chrift  and  mankind,  as  one,  in  the  fame  fenfe 
that  the  head  and  members  in  the  natural  body  are  one. 
If  this  be  fo,  then  we  are  no  more  indebted  to  Chrifl  for 
our  redemption,  than  a  man^s  hands  are  indebted  to  his 
head  for  inventing  means  for  his  Uvehhood  ;  or  his  head  is 
indebted  to  his  hands  for  applying  thofe  means. 

4.  It  alfo  appears,  that  on  this  plan  Chrift  is  now  fuf- 
fering,  and  will  without  end  fufFer,  an  eternal  death.  Ob- 
ferve  the  quotation  from  page  4th,  '^  Sin  is  a  crime  only 
*^  atoned  for  by  the  death,  yea  the  eternal  death  of  xhcfin- 
^'  ner  ;  which  j uUice  muft  inflidr,  before  it  can  be  properly 
*^  fatirfied  :  nor  can  it  poilibly  admit  of  ay7^rf/j  here  ;  be- 
^'  caufe  it  can  only  punifli  him  whom  it  firft  finds  guilty  ; 
'^  and  not  by  reckoning  him  to  be  what  he  is  not,  accord- 
*'  ing  to  human  quibbles,  but  according  to  divine  equity, 
*^  which  can  only  declare  fuch  guilty  on  whom  the  fault  is 
^'  found,  and  can  only  find  the  fault,  on  fuch  who  have 
^^  committed  it."  Thefe  expreflions  m.anifeftly  declare, 
(i)  That  Chrilt  is  a  fmner,  and  committed  the  lin  or  fault 
for  which  he  fufFered,  and  that  not  by  imputation  and  as  the 

furety  of  his  people,  but  really  and  literally. (2)  That 

fm  can  be  atoned  for  by  the  fufFerino- of  eternal  death  only. 

This  and  this  only  will  properly  fatisfy  juHice.- (3)  That 

therefore,  as  Chrifl  is  -the  propitiation  for  our  fins,  he    is 
nov/,  and  will  without  end,  be  fuffering  eternal  death. 

But  I  need  not  trouble  the  reader  v/ith  any  further  re- 
marks on  fuch  wild  and  confufed  myfticifm  ;  fuch  horrid 
doctrine. 


///.  Remarks  on  M.  Petitpierre's  '^  Thoughts  on  the  Divine 
^^  Goodnffsy  relative  to  the  government  of  moral  agents, 
**  particularly  difplayed  in  future  rewards  and  purafJ:-^ 
''  ments.'^ 

This  author  is  a  Swifs,  who  was  a  clergyman  in  his 
own  country  ;  but  falling  into  univerfalifm,  was  cenfured 
and  depofed. — After  this  he  went  to  London,  where  he 
publiflied  the  book  which  is  now  the  fubjed  of  remark.  It 
firft  appeared  in  French,  and  was  publilhed  in  En^lifli 
in    1788. 


Remarks  on  Petitpierre,  ooa 

If  I  miftake  not,  the  fundamental  principles  of  this  book 

are  thefe  two, That  the  fniner  on  the  footing  of  ftrift 

juff:ice,  deferves  no  other  puniUiment,  than  that  which  is 
neceiTary  to  lead  him  to  repentance  and  prepare  him  for 
happinefs- That  the  happinefs  of  every  individual  crea- 
ture is  necefTary  to  the  greatell  happinefs  of  the  general 
fyflem. 

In  page  24th,  of  the  preceding  work,  a  quotation  or 
two  was  made  to  ihow,  that  the  firil  of  the  tv^'o  propoiirions 
now  mentioned,  is  a  principle  of  this  author.  'I  o  thofe 
quotations  a  great  part  of  his  book  may  be  added  to  ihow 
the  fame  ;  but  I  fhall  add  the  following  fentences  only. — 
'^  The  Deity  being  infinitely  jufi:,  will  inflict  on  the  wick- 
'^  ed  juil  and  equitable  punifliments  ;  punifhments  exaclly 
^^  proportioned  both  in  degree  and  duration,  to  the  nature 

*'  and  extent  of  their  crimes.''* ^'  The  fecond  rule 

*^  which  divine  juftice  follows  in  the  difpenfation  of  pu- 
*^  nirnment,  is,  to  employ  rigour  only  fo  much,  and  fo 
^'  long,    as  ihall  be  necelTary  to  thedeftruction  of  {lUy   and 

^*  the  converfion  of  the  (inner. "f ^^  The   third  rule 

'^  of  divine  juftice  in  the  difpenfations  of  fuiFerings,  in- 
'^  informs  us,  when  the  Supreme  Being  ceafes  punifhment;" 

i.  e.   when  the  Imner  repents.  J ''   We  have  efbblifh- 

*^  ed  a  principle  whence  to  form  confiftent  ideas  of  ihe 
'^  j'^ft'^ce  arid  feverity  of  God,  who  puniflies  tlie  wick- 
^^  ed  that    he  might   blefs    them' in  turning  them  every 

*'   one    from    their   iniquities"  || Infinite  juftice    a- 

*'  dapts  with  the  moft  perfect  and  minute  detail,  rhe 
*'  refpe^live  fuitablenefs  of  his  dealing  to  our  moral 
*^  f/atey  and  confequently  to  our  wa?its,  throughout 
'^  the  wtole  of  our  exiftence.''§ 

On  thefo  quotations  it  may  be  remarked, 

I.  That -according  to  this  plan,  the  moft  f:c/!?^  and  r/- 
gorousjujrice,  dtv'ine  juftice,  infi',nte]u{k\c?.y  admits  that  a  fm- 
ner  be  made  to  fuffer  till  he  repents,  and  no  further.  Such 
a  punifhment  as  this,  is  ^^  exactly  proportioned  both  in  de- 
*^  gree  and  duration,  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the 
^'  crimes"  of  the  (inner.  This  then  is  the  utmoft  which 
the  divine  law  will  admit :  this  is  the  true  curfc  of  the  di- 
vine law  ;  even  that  curfe  from  which  Chrift  hath  redeem- 
ed us. 

2.  This 

*  P.  91.  t  P.   102.  X  F.  no,  II  P.   1.37-    §  P-  7^- 


3IO  Remarks  on  Pctifpierre, 

1.  This  puniiliment  inflicled  on  any  (inner,  utterly  pre- 
cludes all  pardon,  forgivenefs  and  mercy.  How  is  he  for- 
given, who  fuiTers  to  the  iitmoft  extent  of  juflice  ?  How  is 
any  fparing  mercy  exercifed  toward    him,  on  whom   the 

curfe  of  the  law  is  fully  executed  ? Yet   M.  Petitpier- 

re^confcantly  holds,  that  the  falvation  of  finners  is  effe^lied 
in  the  way  oi  mercy ,  pardon  znd  forgivenefs.  Thus,  fpeak- 
ing  of  the  divine  good nefs,  he  lays,"*  ^'  Are  men  miiera- 
'^   hie?    It    is    termed  that    infinite  cornpajfion  he   has   for 

'^  then'  wretchednefs. =But    when   by  a  fmcere  repen- 

^^  tance  they  turn  from  their  iniquity,  then  it  is  his  clcmen- 
*-'■   ry,  ]us  pardon,  his  mercy,  and  his  ^r^T.?,  that  is  extend- 

''   ed  to  them/' "   How    ftriking,   how   awful,  and  at 

'^  the  fame  tirje  how  riercifid,  are   the   reprefentations  of 

'•^   future  torments  !"f ^'   He   will  conflantly   pardoHy 

*^  and  receive  into  favour  the  fmcerely  penitent  offender. 
'•  Repentance  appeafcs  divine  anp-er  anddifarm.s  its  juflice, 
*'*  becaufe  it  accomplilhes  the  end  infinite  gocdnefs  has  in 
'^  view,  even  v/hen  arrayed  in  the  awful  majefty  of  aveng- 
*^  ^^S  P^fl'^'^'^  '■)  which  v/as  fevere,  becaufe  the  moral  flate 
**  of  the  Tinner  required  fuch  difcipline  ;  and  which  when 
*•  that  ft'itc  is  reveri'ed  by  converfion — will  have  nothing 
'^  to  beftow  fuitable  to  it,  but  the  delightful  manifeflations 
'^  K)^ mercy  2i\-\d  forglvenefs.^^  It  feems  then,  that  not  on- 
ly  is  yz^4^/cfy?/f/\r;^W  by  the  repentance  of  the  fmner  ;  but 
j'ift'tce^  even  the,aivftd  mcjefly  cf  avenging  ju/nce,  will  he- 
ilow  mercy  und  forgive :rejs.  But  how  forgivenefs  can  be 
an  acc  of  juflice,  and  efpec;ialiy  an  act  of  avenging  jufdce, 
remains  to  be  explained. 

3.  T'he  puniihment  now  under  confideration,  is  utterly  in- 
confiflent  with  redemption  by  Chrift.  How  are  they  redeem- 
ed or  delivered  from  the  curfe  of  the  law,  who  in  their  own 
perfons  fuffer  that  curfe  ?  And  if  Chrift  fliould  deliver  them 
ironi  it,  he  would  deprive  them  of  an  ineftimable  benefit. 

4.  If  *^  infimte  jufiics  adapts  v/ith  the  moft  perfect  and 
^^  minute  detail,  the  refpe6live  fuitablenefs  of  his  dealings 
*'  to  our  moral  ftate,  and  confequently  to  our  wants, 
'*  throughout  the  v/hole  of  our  exiitence  ;-'  then  what  is 
goodnefs  i  and  how  is  it  diftinguiflied  from  juftice  ?  What 
more  kind  arjd  favorable  than  tliis,  can  goodnefs,  the  divine 
gooduels,  infinite  and  incomprehenlible  goodnefs,  do  tor 
usi   According  to  this  defuiiticn  of  infinite  j^Jlice,    the  in- 

ftitutions 

*  P.  6;     t  P.   109. 


Remarks  on  Petrlphrrc,  71  f 

flitutions,  promifes  and  fcheme  of  the  gofpel,  nay  the  un- 
fpeakable  gift  of  Chriil  himfelf,  are  mere  communicatioi;TS 
of  juflice,  and  not  of  goodnefs  and  grace  :  and  according 
to  the  fame  definition  there  never  has  becn^  and  never  cm 
be,  any  benefit  granted  by  the  Deity  to  any  of  his  creatures^ 
which  is  any  more  than  a  fruit  of  mere  juflice,  and  Vvhick 
may  be  withholden  conliiiiently  with  jullice  :  and  all  that 
God  ever  has  done,  and  ever  will  or  can  do,  for  xlie  hap- 
pinefs  of  his  creatures,  is  barely  fulficicnt  to  farve  his  cha- 
racler  from  a  well  grounded  charge  of  injuilice. 

But  I  mean  nor  to  dwell  on  this  fubject :  I  do  but  hint 
thefe  particulars.  It  would  be  an  infinite  labour  to  point 
out  the  endlefs  abfurdities  of  this  fcheme  of  jullice  andpu- 
nifliment.  I  have  ccniidered  the  point  more  largely  in 
Chap.  II,  to  which  I  beg  leave  to  refer  the  reader. 

The  other  fundamental  principle  of  this  book  is,  Tliat 
the  happinefs  of  every  individual  creature  is  necelFary  to 
the  greateil  happinefs  of  the  fyflem.  This  idea  is  cxpref- 
fed  in  various  palTages,  particularly  in  the  following,  ^^  It 
*'  is  impoirible  the  Divine  Being  fliould  ever  dijpenfe  any 
*•  evil  in  this  world,  or  in  the  world  to  come  ;  v.-hich  is 
''  not  even  to  the  individuals  an  actual  exercife  of  perfect 
**  goodnefs,'^* 

And  that  this  is  necelTarily  implied  in  the  fcheme  of 
this  author,  and  of  all  others  who  argue  univerfal  falva- 
tion  from  the  divine  perfections,  vvithout  reipecc  to  the  a- 
tonement,  mufl  be  manifell  upon  the  fiightcil  reflection. 
Goodnefs  will  always  feck  the  greateft  good  or  happinefs  of 
intelligent  beings.  And  that  the  happinefs  of  the  fyflem 
is  a  greater  good  than  the  happinefs  of  any  individual  or 
individuals  ot  that  fyflem,  is  a  felf  evident  propoiition. 
Therefore  goodnefs  will  neve^  feek  the  happinei's  of  any 
individuals,  fo  as  to  diminiih  the  happinefs  of  the  fyfcem  : 
for  this  would  be  not  to  feek  the  advancement  of  happinefs 
on  the  whole,  but  the  diminution  of  it.  If  therefore  the 
divine  goodnefs  feeks  the  final  happinefs  of  every  intelli- 
gent.creature,  it  mufl  be  becaufe  the  happinefs  of  every 
creature  promotes  and  is  necelTary  to  fccure  the  grealefl 
happineis  of  the  fyftem.  If  it  be  not  neceffary  to  the 
greateil  happinefs  of  the  fyflem,  it  is  no  object  to  goodnefs. 

Concerning  this  principle  the  foUov/ing  flriclures  are 
fug-p-efled  : 

I.    TliK 

*  p.  220. 


312  Rc7narks  on  Pethpierre. 

I.   The  truth  of  it  is  by  no  means  evident. Indeed 

M.  Petitplerre  fuppofes  the  abfurdity  of  the  contrary  po- 
fition  to  be  exceedingly  clear,  and  therefore  indulges  him- 
felf  in  the  following  ardent  eftuiion  :  ^'  Can  we  iuppofe 
'*  that  intelligent  creatures  capable  by  their  nature  of  per- 
'^  feclion  and  felicity,  would  be  unable  to  attain  to  this  glo- 
'^  rious  deitination,  unlefs  at  the  fame  time  a  number  of 
■^'  intelligent  beings  exilied  in  eternal  mifery  ?  Among 
creatures  of  the  fame  nature,  thence  capable  of  the  fame 
happinefs  ;  mult  a  part  be  made  happy  at  the  expence 
of  a  condderabie  portion  devoted  to  endlefs  mii'ery  and 
defpair  ?  Cannot  a  Being  infinitely  perfect  and  happy 
^^  communicate  beatitude  to  his  intelligent  offspring,  on 
^^  other  ajid  more  favourable  terms  ?  Can  he  not  be  to 
**  iome  the  inexhauftible  fource  of  happinefs  ;  unlefshe  is 
*'  toothers  the  never-failing  fource  of  mifery?  But  let  us 
*^  ceafe  to  heap  contradiclion  on  contradiction,  horror  up- 

'*   on  horror,  and  end  tliis   difagreeable    difcuffion.'* 

M.    P rre    did  notrefiecl,   that  if  this  pall'age  contain 

any  argument,  it  is  equally  forcible  againib  the  evils  which 
in  /I/67  take  place  in  this  world,  as  againO:  the  puni/hments 
of  the  future  ;  and  that  the  paiTage  may  be  retorted  thus  ; 
Can  we  fuppofe  that  intelligent  creatures  capable  by  nature 
of  peace,  liberty,  and  all  the  enjoyments  of  human  fociety, 
would  be  unable  to  attain  to  this  excellent  def[inaticn,  un- 
lefs at  the  fame  time  a  number  of  intelligent  beings  were 
rendered  miferable  by  fines,  ccnfifcations,  ignominy,  pri- 
fons,  chains,  ftripes  and  the  gallows  ?  Among  creatures 
of  the  fame  nature,  thence  capable  of  the  fame  happinefs  ; 
muil:  a  part  be  made  fafe  and  happy  at  the  expence  of  a 
confiderable  portion  devoted  to  mifery  and  defpair,  in  the 
ways  jull  mentioned  ?  Cannot  a  being  infinitely  perfect 
and  happy  communicate  beatitude  to  his  intelligent  ofF- 
fpring  on  other  and  more  favourable  terms-?  Can  he  not 
be  to  fome  the  fource  of  peace,  fafety,  liberty  and  hap- 
pinefs ;  unlefs  he  be  to  others  the  fource  of  mjfery  ?  But 
let  us  ceafe  to  heap  contradiftion  on  contradiftion,  horror 
upon  horror,  and  end  this  difagreeable  difcuffion. 

To  fay  that  God:  can  convert  the  v/icked,  and  without 
endlefs  imprifonment  and  punilhment,  prevent  the  miichief 
which  they  would  do  to  the  fyftem,  affords  no  fatisfad:ion. 
So  God  can  convert  the  wicked  in  this  v/orld,  and  prevent 
all  the  mifchief  v/hich  they  do  here.     The  queftion  is  not, 

what 


'Re'/Hcirks'  on  M.  PetUplen'St  013 

ymzt  God  has  power  to  do,  but  what  he  will  in  fad  do  ; 
and  what  he  may  fee  fit  to  permit  others  to  do. 

M.  P — rre  proceeds  to  argue  againit  the  polTibility,  that 
the  mifery  of  fome  intelligent  creatures  fhould  be  neceiTary 
to  the  happinefs  of  the  rell: ,  and  urges  that  inftead  of  tliis, 
it  would  fubvert  their  happinefs  ;  becaufe  the  inhabitants  of - 
heaven  are  fo  full  of  benevolence  and  eompaiTion,  that  they  . 
cannot  be  happy,  while  numbers  of  their  fellow  creatures 
are  miferable  ;  and  efpeciaily  becaufe  it  muft  be  liill  more 
painful  to  them,  to  know  that  the  eternal  fufferings  of  thofe 
their  fellow  creatures,  were  neceiTary  to  their  ov/n  happi- 
nefs**  But  thefe  obfervations  are  no  more  reconcileable 

with  fa£t  and  with  experience,  than  thofe  which  I  jufl  now 
quoted  from  the  fame  author.  Are  the  befl  of  men  in  this 
world,  fo  compafTionate,  that  they  cannot  be  happy  fo 
long  as  thieves  and  robbers  are  conlined  in  work-houfes 
and  prifons,  and  murderers  die  on  gibbets  ?  And  do  they 
difdain  to  enjoy  their  lives,  their  lioerty,  their  peace  and 
their  property,  unlefs  they  can  be  fecured  in  the  polTeriion 
of  them,  on  terms  iefs  ignominious  and  painful  to  fome  of 
their  fellow  creatures  ? 

Such  are  the  arguments  by  which  M.  P- rre  endea- 
vours to  prove,  that  the  mifery  of  fome  men  cannot  be  ne- 
celFary  to  the  greatefl  good  of  the  fyftem.  If  thefe  argu- 
ments be  not  convincing,  it  is  in  vain  to  expecl  convincing 
evidence  of  the  proportion  now  under  confideration,  from 
M.   P rre. 

1.  The  reader  has  doutlefs  taken  notice  that  the  propo- 
fition  now  under  confideration  implies,  not  only  that  end- 
lefs  mifery,  but  any  temporary  calamity  cannot  be  inflicled 
on  an  individual,  confiilently  with  the  good  of  the  whole, 
unlefs  that  temporary  calamity  be  fubfervient  to  his  perfon- 
al  good.  Obl'erve  the  words  quoted  above,  ^'  It  is  im-< 
*^  poiiible  the  Divine  Being  ihould  ever  difpenfe  any  evil 
^^  in  this  world  or  in  the  world  to  come,  which  is  not  even 

*^  t9  the  individuals^  an  act  of  perfect  goodnefs." Then 

all  evils  and  calamities  which  have  ever  exiiled,  or  do  ex- 
ift,  or  ever  will  exifc,  in  this  world,  as  v/ell  as  the  future, 
are  no  real  evils,  no  cwrfc  to  the  patients  themfclves :  but 
they  ard  all  fo  many  benefits  and  bleffings  to  them.  1  he 
deftrudlion  of  the  old  world,  of  Sodom,  ^zc^  were  real 
biefhngs  to  the  patients  perfonally.  But  hov/  does  this  ap- 
pear ? 

*  P.   215,  kc,  S  s 


.AA^MMMft 


314  Remarks  on  M.  Petltpicrre. 

pear  ?  They  certainly  did  not  in  this  world  operate  for  thfi? 
good  of  the  patients  ;  and  how  does  it  appear,  that  they 
will  operate  for  their  good  in  the  futurf:  world  ?     To  aflert 

this  without  alhgning  a  reafon,   is  impertinent. Befide  ; 

on  this  hypotheiis,  there  is  nofuch  thing  as  any  curfe  either 
in  this  world  or  the  future  ;  and  there  is  no  difference  be- 
tween a  curfe  and  a  hlfjjing.  What  then  iliall  v/e  make  of 
the  fcriptures,  which  fpeak  abundantly  of  curfes,  and  con- 
fbantly  diftinguifh  between  curfes  and  bleffings  I 

3.  This,  which  I  have  called  the  fecond  fundamental 
principle  of  this  author,   is  in  reality  not  dilHnct  from    the 

fird. If  the   good    or    happinefs  of  the  fy frem  require 

the  happinefs  of  every  individual^,  it  furely  cannot  require 
the  niiiery  of  any  individual  :  and  if  it  do  not  require  his 
mifery,  it  is  not  confnleut  with  juftice,  that  he  il^ould  be 
made  mifsrable  by  punifliment ;  or  ir  is  not  confiftent  with 
juilice  th-it  he  be  punifned  any   further  than  is  fubfervient 

to  his  own  perfo!iai  happinefs. No  puniihment  is  con- 

liittaiL  withjuflice,  which  in  view  of  the  criminal  alone, 
without  refpecl  to  a  fubftitute,  or  an  atonement,  the  pub- 
h'c  good  does  not  require. 

So  that  the  whole  fyirem  of  this  author  depends  on  this 
fingle  principle,  That  ir  is  not  ccnliilent  with  juftice,  to 
punKha  iinner  any  further,  than  is  fubfervient  to  his  ov/n 
perfonal  good  :  and  this  principle,  as  I  have  endeavoured 
to  fliow  in  Chap.  II,  and  VIII,  really  comes  to  this, /^^/jcf/zW 
fin  he  a  moj-al  evil.  Moral  evil  is  in  its  own  nature  odi- 
ous, and  juftly  the  objecl  of  divine  difapprobation,  and  of 
the  m.aniieitation  of  difapprobation,  whether  fuch  manifef- 
tation  of  difapprobation  be  fubfervient  to  the  perfonal  good 
of  the  iinner  or  not.  But  the  manifeftation  of  divine  dif- 
approbation is  puniihment.  Therefore  moral  evil  mayjuft- 
ly  be  puniilied,  Vv'hcther  fuch  punifnment  be  lubiervient  to 
the  perfonal  good  of  the  iinner  or  not.  But  as  fin  accor- 
ding to  the  principle  now  under  confideration,  cannot  be 
juftly  punilhed  any  further  than  is  fublervient  to  theper- 
ibnal  good  of  the  iinner,  of  courfe  it  is  no  moral  evil. 

Again  ;  moral  evil  in  its  own  nature  impairs  the  good 
of  the  moral  iyii:em.  Therefore  God  as  a  friend  to  that 
fyitem,  muit  neceilaril)^,  and  may  juftly  difapprove  it,  and 
manifefl  his  difapprobation,  though  it  may  not  tend  to  the 
pcribnal  good  of  the  iinner.  But  this  maniteilation  of  di- 
vine   dilapprobation    is    punifliment,    and  jufl  puniihment. 

but 


/ 


Remarks  on  M.  Peiliplerre,  3  j  ? 

But  fin,  according  to  the  principle  now  under  confiderati- 
on,  cannot  juflly  be  thus  puniflied.  Therefore  fin  is  not, 
according  to  this  principle,   a  moral  evil. 

It  therefore  M.  P rre   beheve,  that  lin  is  a  moral 

evil,  and  in  its  own  nature  deferves  the  divine  abhorrence, 
he  muft,  to  be  confiftent,  give  up  his  v.-hole  fyflem  oi  uni- 
verfal  falvation. 

As  the  book  now  before  us  is  a  later  publication  than 
Dr.  Chauncy^s  ;  and  as  the  Doctor's  book,  which  at  its  firft 
appearance  was  fo  highly  extolled  for  deep  learning  and 
demonftrative  reafoning,  did  not  convert  the  world  ;  the 
zealots  for  univerfalifm  have  beenlavifn  of  their  encomiums 
on  this  work  of  Petitpierre,  and  as  it  feems,  have  great  ex- 
pediations  from  it.  However,  it  requires  no  fpirit  of  pro- 
phecy to  forefee,  that  this  book  will  not  effect  more  nume- 
rous converfions,  than  that  of  Dr.  C.  The  author  has  a 
good  talent  at  declamation  ;  imd  thofe  who  are  already  per- 
fuaded  of  the  truth  of  his  fyftem,  may  be  much  comforted 
by  his  pathetic  reprefentations  of  the  divine  goodnefs  and 
univerfal  happinefs.  But  thofe  who  are  doubtful,  and 
wifli  to  fee  a  confiftent  fyftem  eibibliflied  on  the  broad  ba- 
ils of  reafon  and  revelation,  will  doubtlefs  find  themfelves 
necellitated  toprofecute  their  inquiries  further,  than  M, 
Petitpierre  will  lead  them. 


FINIS. 


i^MUl^^aiMlMlki 


'p6     SUBSCRIBERS      NA  ME  S, 
New-Hampshire. 


Portrmouth . 

Hopkinton. 

Pembroke. 

Portfmouth. 

Hopkinton,  6  books. 

Pittsfield. 

,  Hampton  Falls. 

Hopkinton, 

do. 

Concord. 

Hencker. 

Hopkinton, 

Epfom. 

Hopkinton. 

Concord. 

Hampton  Falls. 

Alftead. 

Stratham. 

Dartmouth  College. 

do. 

Hopkinton 


.EV.  Jofeph  Buckminfler, 
Joilma  Beley,  Efq. 
Richard  Bartlett,  Efq. 
Mr.   Samuel  Bowie, 
Rev.  Jacob  Crane, 
John  Crane,  Eiq. 
Col.  Jonathan  Crane, 
Major  Jfaac  Chandler, 
Aaron  Grcely,    Efq. 
Mr.  Peter  Green,  Phyfician, 
Capt.   Gibfon, 
Mr.  John  Jevv'et, 
Rev.  Ebenezer  Hazeltine, 
Deacon  Abel  Kimbal, 
Mr.   Jonathan  Kimbal, 
Rev.   Samuel  Langdon,  D.  D  = 
Rev.   Levi  Lanktcn^ 
Rev.  James  Miltimore, 
Mr.   Daniel  Merril,   Student, 
Mr.   Eli/lia  Mofely,         do. 
Lieut.  Morfe, 
Rev.  John  C.   Ogden,  Reftor  of  Queen's  Chap.  Portfm. 


Mr.   George  Ofborn,  Printer, 

Mr.  Biilkley  Olcott, 

His  Excellency  John  Pickering,  Efq, 

Deacon  Samuel  Penhallov/, 

Rev.   William  Pickle, 
♦Mr.   Chriilopher  Paige,  A.  M. 
'Hon.  John  Sullivan, 
■  Rev.   Ifaac  Smith, 

Col.    Stickney, 

Mr.   Peter  Sanborn,  A.  B, 

Mr.   John  Sherburn, 

Mr.  Daniel  Shephard,   StUilent, 

Lieut.  Ezekiel  Smith, 

Deacon  Nathan  Sergeant, 

Rev.   Elihu  Thayer, 

Hon.  Ebenezer  Webfler,'  Efq. 

Rev.    Samuel  Wood, 

Mr.  Jofiah  White, 

iVlr.  Azel  V/afhbouiTo 


Portfmouth. 

Charleflown. 

Portfmouth. 

do. 

Bedford. 

Hopkinton. 

Durham. 

Gilmantown. 

Concord. 

Kinoilon. 

Pcrtl  mouth. 

Dartmouth  College, 

Hencker,  6  books. 

Hopkinton. 

Kinglton. 

S:ililbury. 

Bofcwain. 

Pittsfield. 

Puandolph,  in  Verntorit. 


SUBSCRIBERS     N  AM  E  S. 


317 


Mr. 


Massachusett's, 
Rev.  Jofeph  Appleton, 
Rev.   Solomon  Aiken, 
,Rev.  David  Avery,  V.  D.  M. 
Mofes  Aihley,  Efq. 

Mr.  ^  N.  Auftin 

C  Simeon  Ailen, 
Rev.  Daniel  Breck,  V.   D.  M. 
Rev.  John  Bradford,     . 
Rev.   Jofiah  Blodget, 
Rev.  James  Briggs, 
Rev.  Jofeph  Badger, 
John  Bifco,  Efq. 
Jofeph  Browning,   Efq. 
Deacon  Eliflia  Bradley, 
Capt.   Offin  Boardman, 

Jacob  Boardman,  Merchant, 

Edmund  Bar  tie  tr, 

William  Bartlett, 

Moies  Brown,  Merchant, 
^  John  Brown, 

Nathanael  Balch, 

Caleb  Blake,  A.  B. 

Jeremiah  Bumftead, 

David  BaiTet, 
Rev.  Jacob  Catlin, 
Rev.  Daniel  Collins, 
Richard  Cary,  Efq. 
Parker  Cleaveland,  Efq. 
Nehemiah  Cleaveland,   Efq. 
Deacon  Jofeph  Cutler, 
Capt.   Greenleaf  Clark, 
Capt.  John  Coombs, 

Jofliua  Crofby, 

William  Coombs,  merchant, 

David  CofHn,  merchant, 

Reuben  Cotton, 

Nathan  Church, 
I  Gerlliom  Cutler, 
[  Hezekiah  Clark,  phyfician, 
L  William  Caldwell, 
Hon.  Thomas  Dawes,  Efq. 
Mr    yJof^nDeming, 
(^  Richard  Devens^ 


Ml-.  . 


Brookfield. 

Dracutt. 

Wrentham. 

Stockbridge. 

Charleftown. 

Sturbridoe. 

Topsfield. 

Boxbury. 

Greenwich. 

Cummington. 

Biandford. 

Spencer. 

Brimfield. 

Stockbridge. 

Newbury-Port. 

do. 

do.  6  bcoks. 
do. 
do. 

Holland. 

^  Borton. 

Wrentham. 

Bofion. 

Ware. 

New  Marlborough. 

Lanefborough 

Charleftown. 

Newbury-Port. 

Topsiield . 

Brookfield. 

Newbury-Port« 

do. 

Hard  wick,  6  books. 

Newbury-Port. 

do. 

Greenwich, 

Newbury-Port. 

Bofton. 

Lanelborough. 

Newbury-Port. 

Bofloii. 

do. 

Ch^lellown, 


3^' 


SUBSCRIBERS    NAMES 


f  Lucius  Doolittle,  phyfician, 
Ml-.  <|  Afa  Dana, 

L  Timothy  Dickenfon,  A.  M. 
p  '      C  Nathruiael  Emmons, 
^^^'Y.Joreph  Eddey, 
Capt.  Daniel  Egery, 

f  James  Freeman, 
Jonathan  French^k 
EhiTia  Fiih, 
j  Amaziah  Frcft, 
j  Ehjah  Fitch, 
llaac  Fofler, 
I  Daniel  Fofter, 
L  Elilha  Fifh, 
Deacon  M.  French, 


Rev 


Hardwick, 
Holland. 

Amherft. 

Franklin,  6  books. 

Boiton. 

Hard  wick. 

Boflon,  2  books. 

Andover. 

Upton,  2  books. 

Milford,   2  books. 

Hopkinton. 

Great  Barrington. 

N.    Braintree. 

Windlor. 

Braintree, 


f  Andrew  Frathingham,  merchant,  Newbury-Port. 


Hon, 


John  Fitz, 

[  Robert  Fowl,  A.   B. 

Mr.    <|  Ptobert  Field. 

Danifci  Farrington,  A.  B. 

Zebediah  Farnham, 

Daniel  Fay,    Tun. 

Mofes  Gill,  El'q. 

Hon.  N.   Gorham,  Efq. 

Rev.   Thomas    Gair,  A.  M. 

Deacon  Richard  Gridley, 

Mr.  Abel  Greenleaf,  merchant;, 

Major  Jofeph  Gould, 

r  Samuel  Hopkins, 

T>        !  Thomas  Holt. 
Kev.  {  rp       1   o  1 
I  Enoch  Hale, 

1^  William  Hooper, 

William  Hyflop,  Efq. 

Mr.  Daniel  Hortcn, 


GO. 

do. 
Greenwich. 
Wrentham. 
Newbury-Port. 
Hard  wick. 
Boilon. 
Charlellown. 
B  often. 
,       do. 
Newbury-Pcrt. 
Topsfield. 
Hadlcv. 
Hard  wick,  3  books. 
Wefl-Bampton.' 
Berwick. 
Brooklyn. 
Newbury-Port,  6  books. 


Mr.  Benjamin  Herrod,  Merchant, 
Capt.  Jofeph  Hale, 
r  Jofeph  Hale, 

IJuflus  Hull,  Baptifb  preacher, 
Thomas  Hinckley,  Merchant, 
]  John  Hamilton, 
^  Jos.  Hurd, 
Silvanus  Howe, 
JeiTe  Haven, 
t  DaA'i^  Ingerfoll, 


do. 
do. 


Mr. 


Hardvv'ick. 

Koofuck. 

Brimiield. 

Pelham. 

Charleftov/n. 

Greenwich, 

liolliflon. 

Lee, 


SUBSCRIBERS    NAMES.     315^ 


Mr.  James  Je wet,  Merchant^ 
Rev.  David  Kellogg, 
^athanael  Kingfley,  Efq. 
Maj.  Martin  Kiniley, 
Mr.  Jof.  Kettel, 
Mr,  Benjamin  Keeler, 
^  Rev.  Jchn  Lathrop,   D.  D. 
Deacon  I.  Larkin, 

f  Robert  Long,  Schoolmafter, 
Mr.  <j  Jofeph  Long,  do. 

t  Phineas  Lyman, 
Capt.  Alfred  Lyon, 
Rev.  Samuel  Monfon, 
Deacon  Jonathan  Maion, 
Deacon  Patrick  M'Mulien, 

f  John  Mycall,  Printer, 
ty^     j  Jonathan  Morfe, 
.         j  Thomas  Moor,  A.  B. 

t  Daniel  Matthews, 
Capt.  James  MePen, 
■jv^j     C  James  Mann,  A.  M. 

*  ^  Abraham  Noyes,  Trader, 
Capt.  William  Noyes, 
Mr.  Silas  Noyes,  Merchant, 
Deacon  Stephen  Nalh, 
Capt.  Nathanael  Newell, 
f  Richard  S.  Noyes, 
-jyr.    J  BiPnop  Norton,   Schoolmafter, 
I  John  Nazro,  Merchant, 
t  Afa  Newton, 
Hon.  Oliver  Phelps, 
f  David  Perry, 
'  Jofeph  Pope, 
I  Elijah  Parifh, 
1^  John  Porter, 
Eleazer  Porter,  Efq. 
•jyr      C  Nicholas  Pike,  A.  B.  and  A.  A. 
^  Enoch  Plummer,  Jun.   Trader, 
Elder  Jeremy  Pearfon, 
Deacon  Aaron  Phipps, 
Capt.   James  Paige, 
Deacon  Nathanael  Paip-e, 
Capt.  Timothy  Paioe^ 
Mr.   Paul  Paige, 


Rev;    ^ 


Newbury- Port. 

FramiDgham. 

Becket, 

Kardwick- 

Charleil:ov/n. 

Lanelborough^ 

Bofton. 

Charleitown. 

New  bury -Port* 

do. 

Had  ley, 

-Holland- 

Lenox. 

Bofton. 

Pel  ham. 

Newbury-Port, 

do. 

Sterling, 

New  Braintrec 

Holliflon. 

Wrenthani. 

New  bury -Port. 

do. 

do.       . 
Stockbrido-e. 
Ne  v/bury-  Fort, 
do. 

do. 

Worcefler. 

Eelchertown, 

Granville. 

Richmond. 

Spencer. 

Newbury. 

Bridgewater. 

Had  lev. 

V 

S.   Newbury-Port. 
do, 
do, 

Hollifton. 

Hardwick. 


do. 

do. 


|2o      S  U  B  S  C  R  I  B  E  R  S    N  A  M  E  S.; 


f  Reed  Paige,  A.  B. 

Window  Paige, 

Oliver  Partridge,  Phyfician, 

Richard  Pike,  merchant, 

Jonathan  Pearibn, 
Mr.  <j  Samuel  Pilfbmy, 

Enoch  Pond,  A.   M. 

William  Paige, 

Ephraim  Perkins, 

Elijah  Phelps, 
^  Mofes  Paige, 
Deacon  V/iliiam  Paige, 
Capt.  Seth  Pierce, 
n  ^  Ezra  Reeve, 

^^^*    "^  John  Robinfon, 
f  Auguilus  Regan, 
Mr.   <J  JefTe  Remington, 
I^Ebenezer  Rich, 


do. 

do. 
Stockbridge* 
Newbury-Port, 
do. 
do. 
Wrentham. 
Ware. 
Becket. 
Lanesborough. 
Hardwick* 
do. 
do. 

Holland* 

Weftborough. 

Newbury-Port. 

Abington. 

Greenwich. 


Hon.    Theodore  Sedgv/ick,  Reprcfentative    in   Congrefs, 

Stockbridge. 

Med  way,  12  books, 

D.  D.  Bofton,   6  books. 

Worthington,   6  books. 


'David  Sanford, 
Samuel  Stillman, 
Joiiah  Spalding, 

Rev.    <i  Samuel  Spring, 

Jonathan  Strong, 
Hezekiah  Smith, 
^  Seth  Swift,     ■ 

John  Sweetfer,  Efq. 

John  Stone,  Efq. 

Samuel  Savage,   Efq. 

Edmund  Sawyer,  Efq. 

Afhbel  Strong,  Efq. 

Col.  Jonathan  Smith, 

Deacon  John  Simpkins, 

Deacon  Richard  Smith, 

Deacon  Nehemiah  Stebbins, 

Capt.  Simon  Stone, 

Deacon  Ebenezer  Stratton, 

Lieut.  Andrew  Squier, 


JMewbury-Port. 

Braintree. 

Haverhill. 

Williamflown, 

Bofton, 

Hollifton. 

Charleltown. 

Newbury-Port,  6  books. 

Pittsfield. 

Lanesborough, 

Bofton. 

Newbury-Port. 

Greenwich. 

do. 

Williamftown. 

Laneiborough. 


f  Eraftus  Sergeant,  A.  M.  Phyficlan,    Stockbridge. 
I  Edmund  Swaine,  Newbury-Port. 

Mr.   <|  Afa  Sheldon,  New-Marlborough. 

I  Benjamin  Skinner,  *  Wilhamftown. 

I  Oliver  Smith,  Hadley. 


SlJfeSCRXBERS    NAMES.       32X 


Mr.  Jofcph  Shed, 

Hon.  George  Thacher,  Repref.  in  Congrefs 

r,         C  Peter  Thacher, 

2.  David  Tap  pan, 
Elder,  Enoch  Titcomb, 
Deacon  Thomas  Thoinpfori, 

f  Michael  Titcomb, 

1  IfraelTraflc,  Phylician, 


Bofton. 


Mr. 


j  Gideon  Thompfon,  Phyliciaii^ 
t  John  Tirr ell, 
f  Nehemiah  Williams, 


BoftoD , 
Newbury. 
Newbury-Port* 
do. 
do. 

Brimfield. 

Lee,  12  booksi 

Lanefborough. 

Brimiieldi 

Golhen,  6  books. 

Stockbridge. 

Brookiield. 

Eaft- Hampton. 

Conway. 

Lanefborough. 

Holland* 

Hardwick* 

do. 

Lee,  6  books. 

Holland. 

Boftoni 

Worcefter. 

[D.   Wood,  Jun.  Charleftown. 

Suhfcribers  not  returned  infeafnn  to  he  mferted  in  their  pro- 
per places  in  the  preceeding  catalogue, 

.The   Hon.    Caleb    Strong,  Efq.   Senator    of  the  United 

States, 
Kev.   Sofomon  Williams, 
Samuel  Henfhaw,  Eiq. 

f  Ebenezer  Hunt,  phyfician 

j  Levi  Sheppard,  phyfiGian, 


I  Samuel  Whitman, 
Rev.  \  Stephen  Weft, 
I  Ephraim  Ward, 
LPayfon  Williiton, 
Samuel  Ware,  jun.  Efq. 
Gideon  Wheeler,  Efq. 
Deacon  David  Wallis, 
Major  Gen.  Jonathan  Vv''arnef, 
f  Jonathan  Warner,  jun. 
I  Prince  Weft, 
j  Thomas  Wallis,  phyficiari, 
j  Samuel  Whitwell, 
Daniel  Waldo,   merchant, 


M 


r. 


Northampton. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do' 

do. 
Southampton, 


]  Jacob  Parfons, 
t  Jofeph  Clark, 
Rev.  Jonathan  Judd, 

Rhode-Island. 

Hon.  Jabez  Bowen,  Efq.  late   Deputy  Governor   of  the 

State  of  Rhode-Iiland,  Providence. 

Lemuel  Baley,  Efq.  Tiverton* 

Nicholas  Brovvn,  Efq.  merchant^  ^             Providence* 

Mofes  Brown,  Efq.  do. 

Tt 


322     S  U  B  S  C  H  I  B  E  R  S      NAMES. 


Mr.   George  Bcnfon,        merchant^ 

Hon.  John  Fofler,  Efq. 

Theodore  Fofter^  Efq. 

Mr.  Abel  Flint,   Tutor  of  R.  I.  College, 

Rev.   Enos  Hitchcock,  D.  D. 

Rev.    Samuel  Kopkins, 

Jofeph  Martin,   Efq. 

Rev.   William  Patten, 

Rev.   Mafe  Shepard, 

Adam  Simmons,  Efq. 


do. 

do. 
do, 
do. 
do. 
Newport. 
Providence. 
Newport. 
Little  Compton. 
do. 


Mr. 


Connecticut. 
Rev.  Jafon  Atwater, 
Rev.  Samuel  Aiulin, 
David  Ambler,   Efq. 

f  Oliver  Ayer,  A.  B. 
J  Abifhai  Alden, 
J  Gideon  Allen, 
[_Levi  Auitin, 
f  T.   Wells  Bray, 
I  Charles  Backus, 
Rev.  J  Jo^^^.Belden, 
*  }  Matthias  Burnet, 
I  Joel  Bordwell, 
i^  Daniel  Brinfmade, 
Ifaac  Beers,   Efq. 
Thaddeus  Betts,   Efo.  - 
Barnabas  Bidwell,   Efq.  Tutor, 
2yr,    ^  Chandler  Bartlet, 

C.  Barzillai  Beckwith, 
Capt.   Abel  Burritt,  merchant, 
Elifha  Beebe. 
Afahel  Beebe, 
William  Battle,  merchant, . 
Mr.    '<{  David  Brown, 
Martin  Bull, 
Patrick  Butler, 
Daniel  Bulkley,  merchant, 
Deacon  Nathanael  Benedict, 
Jonah  Clark,  Efq. 

Mr.  Daniel  Crocker,  A.  M.  Cam!. for 
Capt.  Henry  Child, 
Benjamin  Chaphn,  Efq, 
Capt.  V/illiam  Cone, 


Branford. 

New-Haven. 

Bethlem. 

Franklin. 

Stafford. 

New  Fairfield. 

Canaan. 

.  N.   Guilford. 

Somers,  6  books. 

Wethersfield. 

Nor  walk. 

Kent. 

Waflilngton. 

New-Kaven. 

Norwalk. 

Yale  Colleo-e. 

Lebanon. 

"Eaft-Haddam. 

New-Haven, 

Canaan, 

do. 

Torringford. 

Afliford. 

Farmington. 

Lebanon. 

Eaft-Haddam. 

Norwalk. 

Branford. 

the  mi  ft.  New -Haven. 

Woodflock. 

Mansfield. 

Eaft-Haddam» 


S  U  B  S  C  R  I  BE  R  S     N  A  M  E  S.       323 


Capt.  Jonah  Cone, 
Deacon  Ebenezer  Cowles, 

f  Ifaac  Cowles,   Phyiician, 
Mr.  I  Merwin  Clark, 

j  Jabez  Chapi-nan, 

t  Aaron  Cooke, 
Rev.  Jeremiah  Day, 
John  Davenport,  Efq. 

f  John  Davenport. 
Mr.  J  Gordon  Dorrance, 

j  Joihua  Dov.ner,  phyiician, 

[  RuiTel  Dutton, 
Capt.  Amafa  Dutton, 
Rev.  Zebulon  Ely, 
Rev.    Samuel  Eells, 
Daniel  Eliwordi,  Efq. 
Mr.  Gurdon  Els  worth. 

f  Daniel  Farrand, 
Rev.  <[  Nathan  Fenn, 

t  John  Foot, 
Col.  Thomas  Fitch,  Attorney  at  Law, 
Mr.  Ebenezer  Fitch,   Tutor, 
Rev.  Elijah  Gridley, 
Rev.  Nathanael  Gaylord, 

f  }ofeph  Galpin, 
Mr.  ^  Elijah  Gridley,  A.  M. 

LJofeph  Griggs, 
Col.  William  Gould,  Phyfician, 

f  Levi  Hart, 
Rev.  <j  Rufus  Hawley, 

L  William  Hotchkifs, 
Nathan  Hale,  Eiq. 
Afahel  Huntington,  Efq. 
Col.  Noadiah   Hooker, 

f  Eliphalet  Holmes, 
Capt.   J  Samuel  Heart, 
j  Ithamar  Karvy, 
[_  Ebenezer  Holmes, 
Deacon  James  Hough, 
Lieut.  Amos  Hosford, 

f  John  Hall, 
^,      J  David  Hale,  A.  M. 
^^'^^''    ]  Jared  Hinckley, 

,  LJapaes  Hatch. 


Eaft-Haddam. 

Nleriden. 

Hanwinton. 

Farmington. 

Eirmcrron. 

o 

Wallintrford. 

Waihington. 

Stamford. 

Hampton, 

Prelton. 

Eafl-Haddam. 

do. 

Lebanon,  4  books. 

North-Branford, 

EUino-ton. 

do. 

Canaan. 

Berlin. 

Chefhire,  6  books. 

Nor  walk. 

Yale  College. 

Mansfield,  6  books. 

Hartland. 

Berlin. 

Farmington. 

Union. 

Branford. 

Prefton,  6  bocks. 

Northington. 

Saybrook. 

Canaan, 

Norwich. 

Farmington. 

Eaft-Haddam. 

Berlin. 

Eaft-Haddam. 

do. 

Meriden. 

Berlin. 

Ellington. 

Coventry. 

Lebanon,, 


5?4 


SUBSCRIBERS    NAMES. 


f  Seth  Higby,  Baptift  Minifter, 
j^^„     J  Dyer  T.  Hinckley,  A.  M. 

{  Ebenezer  Huggins,  merchant, 

LAI  van  Hyde  A.  B. 
Deacon  Levi  Ives, 
Timothy  Jones,  Efq, 

f  James  Judd, 
Mr.   <^  Jared  Jones, 


Wefton, 

Lebanon. 

New-Iiaven. 

Franklin. 

New-Haven. 

do. 
Farmington. 
Branford . 


L  Alfred  Johnfon,  Candidate  for  the  miniftry. 


Capt.  Naihanael  B.  Johnfcn, 
Rev.  Walter  King, 
Rev.  Aaron  Klnne,  V.  D.  M. 
Gol.    Toliii  Keves. 


Meriden. 

Chelfea,  6  books. 

Groton. 

Windham. 

Coventry. 

Berlin. 

Waterbury. 

Milford. 

Eaft-Haddam. 


Vr    ^  Ebenezer  Kinglbury, 
C  Ezekiel  Kcify, 

f  Mc.rk  ^/eivenworth, 
R.ev.    <|   -.Viiiiam  Lock-vcod, 

t  V/i;]iam  Lyman, 
Lynde  Lord.  Efq,  SheritFof  Litchfield  county. 
Capt.  Samuel  Lee,  Guilford,  6  boooks. 

Lieut.  Phineas  Lewis^  Farmington. 

f  Elijah  Lyon,  Woodftock. 

I^li'.  «{  Eliphalet  Lockwood,  merchant,  Norwalk. 


R 


L  Elijah  Loveland, 

f  Jufius  Mitchell, 
ev.  i  Jehu  Minor, 

I  Samuel  John  Millsj, 

[  Noah  Merwin, 
Major  Edward  Mott, 
Jedediah  Morfe,   Efq. 
Mrs.  Mehitabel  Morfe, 
Capt.  John  Mix, 
Capt.  Reuben  Marcy, 
Mr.  William  Fov/ler  Miller,  A.  B. 
Ml-.  John  Morgan, 
Rev.  Samuel  Nott,  V.  D.  M. 
A'b*.  Boger  Newton,  jun.  Tutor, 
Rev.  Alien  Olcott, 
Rev.  Nathan  Perkins, 
Rev.  Jofiiua  Perry, 
R^v.  Timothy  Pitkin, 
Rev.  Mic^iah  Porter,  V.  D.  M, 
Jar.es  Potter,  Efq. 
Qjiver  ParmelcCp   Efq, 


Berlin. 

Canaan,  6  books. 

South-Britain,   6  books. 

Torringford,   2  books. 

Wafhington. 

Prefton, 

Woodftock. 

New-Haven. 

do, 

Ail]  ford. 

Farmington. 

Preilon. 

Franklin,  6  books. 

Yale  College. 

Farmington. 

Hartford , 

Hampden. 

Farmington, 

Voluntown,  6  books. 

New  Fairfield. 

Bethlem. 


SUBSCRIBERS    NAMES.     32; 


i^ 


Major  Nathan  Peters,  Attorney  at  law. 

Deacon  Noah  Port^,- 

Mr.  Edward  Porter, 

Rev.  William  Robinfon, 

Rev.  Medad  Rogers, 

Rev.  Noadiah  Rufiel, 

Rev.  Ammi  P».uhamah  Robins, 

Rev.  Robert  Rebbins, 

Roger  Riley;,  Efq. 

f  Henry  A.  Rowland, 

I  William  F.  Rowland, 

J  Juftas  Pvofe, 

\  Joel  Rice, 

I  William  Robinfon, 

tA?nmi  Rogers.  Student, 
Hon.  Roger  Sherman,  Eiq.  Repref.  m  Cortg.   New-Haven. 
Hon.  Jonathan  Sturges, 
Hon.  Jofeph  Spencer,  Efq. 
Rev.  Ezra  Stiles,  L.  L.D. 
Rev.  John  Smalley, 
Rev.  Cyprian  Strong, 
Rev.  Nathan  Strong, 
Rev,  Timothy  Stone, 
Rev.  Peter  Starr, 


Mr. 


Prefton. 
Farraington. 

do. 
Southington. 
New- Fairfield, 
Thompfon. 
Norfolk. 
Colchefter. 
Berlin. 
Wiudfor. 
do. 
N.  Branford. 
Meriden. 
Preilon. 
Yale  Colleo-e. 


do. 


D.  D. 


Fairfield,  6  books. 

EaltHaddam. 

Prcfident  of  Yale  C. 

Berlin. 

Chatham. 

Kartford. 

Lebanon. 

Warren. 


f  SylvefterSage,  A.B.  Cand.f,  the  mini Jiry,   Berlin. 

(  Caleb  Street,  merchant,  Vv^allingford. 

Mr.   ^  Titus  Street,  merchant,  New-Haven. 

I  William  St.  John,  merchant,  Norwalk. 


L  Samuel  Smith, 
Lieut.  'Elifiia  Strong, 
Hon.  John  Treadwell, 

f  Begjamin  Trumbull, 
Rev.  '  Lemuel  Tyler, 

J  Jonathan  Todd, 

t  David  Tullar, 
Rev.  Martin  Tullar, 
^-.      C  Samuel  G.  Tracy, 

C  William  Townfend, 

Rev  \  J°^^P^  ^^^^' 
^^^'\    JohnWillard, 

Mifs  Nabby  Watfon, 

Wilham  Williams,  Efq. 


Farmington. 

do. 

do. 

North-Haven,  2  books. 

Prefton. 

Guilford, 

Derby. 

Milford. 

Prefton. 

Colchefter. 

Eaft-Haddam. 

Meriden. 

Nevv'-Hartford, 

Stonington. 


Rev.  Sam.  Wales,  D.  D.  Profeff.  gf  Divinity  in  Yale  Col. 
Splomon  Wales,  Ef(^.^  Union. 


3^6      S  U  B  S  C  R  I  B  E  R  S    N  A  M  E  S 

Solomon  Whitman^   Elq.  Farmington. 

f  Stephen  Williams,  Branford. 

Mr    I  Chapman  Warner,  Lyme. 

j  Elizur  Wright,  Canaan. 

LEzra  Woodworth,  A.  B.  Lebanon. 

Capt.  William  Witter,  Prcilon. 

State  of  New-York. 

Rev.  Thomas  Beveridge,  Mlnljler  of  the  Affociate  Congre- 
gation, Cambridge,  Albany  county, 
Mr.  David  Schuyler  Bogart,  Student  of  Cojumbia  College. 
Rev.  Abncr  Benedict,  New  Lebanon. 

f  Samuel  Campbell,  bookfeller,  New-\ork,  14  books. 

I  Matthias  Crane,  Hatter,  do. 

Mr.   s  Cornelius  Davis,   Majl ,r  ^f  the  yffric.  Free  Sch.  do. 

j  Daniel  Hitchcock,  Ilc^ufe  Carpenter,  do. 

1^  Robert  Hodge,  bookfeller,  do.  14  books. 

Rev.  Benjamin  Judd,  Pouiidridge. 

Mr.  John  Johnfon,    Student,  Columbia  College. 

Mr.  Henry  Johnfon,  Teacher  of  the  Eng,  Lang,    N.  \ork. 
Rev.  John  Livingfton,  D.  D.  do. 

f  Thomas  Vail,  do. 

jVIr.    <!  Abraham  Vanp-elder,  do. 

L  William  W.  Wolfey,  do. 

New- Jersey. 
Mrs.  Margaret  Berrien,  Rocky  Hill. 

Mr.  Jofeph  Brevvfter,  PHyfician,  Deerfield,   Cumb.  coun. 
Rev.  Mathias  Cazier,  Orange  Dale. 

Mr.  Abijah  Davis,  Student  in  Divinity,  ,-    Deerfield. 

Mifs  Hannah  Fox,  Burlington  county. 

Rev.  Ohver  Hart,  A.  M.  Paftor  of  the  Bap.  Ch.  Hopev.eli. 
Mr.  Ifaac  Harris,  Phyfician,  Pittsgrove. 

f  Jofeph  Grover,  Hanover. 

Rev   J  J^"'^^^-^"  Jarman,  '      Cohanfey. 

*  j  Robert  Keiiay,  Paflor  of  the  Bap.  Church,     do. 

L  Andrew  Law, 
Nathan  Leek,  Efq.  Deerfield,  C.  c. 

Recompence  Leek,  do*  do. 

f  David"  Lore,  Cumberland  county. 

I  David  Mood,  Deerfield,  Cumberland  c. 

■jyj      j  Joh"  Royal,  Cohanfey. 

'    '    j  Philip  Shepard,  do. 

I  Ifaac  Shepard,  do. 

t  John  Sijgin>  ,d«. 


SUBSCRIBERS    NAMES.     ^327 

Ifaac  Wheaton,  Efq.  Cumberland  county. 

Rev.  Peter  Wilion,  Bordentown. 

Pennsylvania. 
P        C  Piobert  Annan,  A>  M.  Philadelphia. 

1  John  Anderfbn,  Memb.  of  the  JJfoc.  Prejh.  Pennf. 
Robert  Aiiken,  Printer,  Philadelphia,  2  books. 

Major  vviljiam  Alexander,  Carlifle. 

John  x\gne\v,  Efq.  do. 

John  Allen,  mafori  do. 

1^^     C  Charles  Bovard,  '  do. 

C  V/iUiam  Blair,  do. 

Mrs  Eliza  Bankfon,  Philadelphia. 

John  Creigh  Efq.  merchant,  Carhde. 

Mifs  Sufanna  Cheefman,  ■  Philadelphia. 

B.ev.  James  Clarkion,/lf/;2z/?^r  of  the  J ffb  date  Congregation, 

of  Gwcenflown,  in  York  count}'. 
Rev.  Jofeph  CI arkfon,  Philadelphia. 

, ,       C  Robert  Campbell,  bookfeller,  Philadelphia. 

i  Matthew  Carey,  Printer,  do.  30  books. 

f  Daniel  Cornog,  Great  Valley,  6  books. 

Mr.    <j  Stephen  Duncan,  merchant.  Carlifle. 

t  David  Denny,  Stud,  in  Divin.    Dickinf.    Col.   do. 
Thomas  Duncan,  Efq.   Attorney  at  Law.  do. 

Rev.  George  D-jffield,  D.  D.  Philadelphia. 

f  Matthew  Duncan. 
yr       \  Thomas  Dobfon,  bookfeller,  Philadelphia. 

\  Campbell  Dick,   mer'hant, 

t  Samuel  Davis,   Flatter,  Philadelphia. 

Rev.  John  Ewing,  D.D.  Provoftof  the  Univer.  of  Pennf. 
Mr.  Silas  Engles,   Foufe  Carpenter. 
John  Fulton,  Efq.  Ealu  Nottingham,  Chefcer  county. 
Rev.  John  E.  Fiuley,  Pafr.  of  the  Cong,   c/  Faggs-manor, 
*  f  John  Fairbairn,  Philadelphia. 

I  Samuel  Gray,   merchant,  Carlifle. 

■Kjr       \  Andrew  Gwin,  do. 

]  Ifaac  Greer,  Stud,  in  Divin.  Dickinfon  College,  do. 

(  Jofeph  S.  Galbraith,     do.  do.  do. 

LJoieph  Givin,   merchant,  do. 

Rev.  David  Goodwillie,  AI(fw/;<-r  of  the  AJTociate  Prejhytcry . 

f  John  Gemmel,  A,  M.    Student  in  Divinity. 
Mr.   <|  John  Hughes,  merchant,  Carlifle. 

l^  Silas  Hough,  Bucks  county. 

John  Jordan,  Efq.^  Carliilc, 


33t8     SUBSCRIBERS    NAME  1^; 


Mr.  Jofeph  Junkin, 

f  William  Innes,  Brewer, 


do. 

Philadelphia, 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 


Eaft  Pennf  J 
Philadelphia. 
T.^      j  Thomas  Johnflone,  Pequea,  Lancafter  county, 

^  ^^*    I  George  Kline,  Printer,  Carliflc. 

1^  James  Lamberton,  merchant, 
Mr.  Samuel  Leacock, 
Charles  Leeper,  Efq. 

'  John  Montgomery,  merchant, 
Robert  Miller, 
Jehn  Miller,  merchant, 
Mr.    <j  John   Morrifen,  tobacconift, 

Samuel  A.  M'CofKry,  practitioner  of  phyfic,       do. 
I  James  M^Lain,  jun.  Stud.  inDivin.  Dick.  Col.     do. 
(,  Samuel  M'Lane,  Breeches -maker  and  Glover,  Phil. 
Jofeph  Magoffin,  Efq. 

fjohn  M^Culloh,  Spruce-ftreet,   Philadelphia. 

I  James  Moyes,   Sailmaker,  do. 

Mr.   «^  Richard  Mofely,  Carpenter,  do. 

I  John  M' Allilter,  cane  &  whipmaker,  market-ft.  do* 
L  James  Muir,  in  Sheets, 
Rev.  William  Marfhall,  Mm.  of  the  Scots  Prefl-yterian  Chur. 

Philadelphia,  6  books.- 
Mr     5^  J«^"  M'Culloch,  Printer,  Philadelphia,    12  copies. 

\  Thomas  Napier,  Planemaker,  Philadelphia. 
Rev.  Charles  Nifbet,  D.  D.   Prin.  of  Dick.  CoL   Carlifle. 
•jyT      C  William  Petrikin,  taylor,  do. 

\  Hugh  Patten,  do. 

Col.   Samuel  Poftlethwaite,  do. 

f  John  Pardon,  merchant,  Philadelphia. 

I  Robert  Patton,  do.  6  books. 

Mr.  {  James  Rofs,  Prof,  of  Lang,  in  Dick.  Col.  Carlifle. 
I  William  Rynolds,  Farmer,  Pequea,  Lancafter  coun. 
(^  Henry  Rice,  bookfeller,  Philadelphia. 

Rev.    William  Rogers,    J,  M.  ProfefTor  of  Englifh  and 
Oratory,  in  the  College  of  Philadelphia. 
Benjamin  Ruih,  M.  D.  ProfelT.  of  Chemiftry,  do. 

f  Sallows  Shevvel,  merchant,  do. 

Thomas  Shields,  Goldfmith,  do. 

James  Short,  florekeeper,  borough  of  York, 

IVIr.   \  Conrad  Shutz,  Philadelphia. 

Matthew  Sinclair,  Stud,  in  Div.  Dick.  Col.  Carlifle. 
V/illiam  Speer,  do.  do. 

^  Nathanael  Randolph  Snowden,      do.  do. 

Ephraim  Steel,  Efq.  merchant,  do- 


SUBSCRIBERS     NAMES.      329 


Mr.  Robert  Smith,  merchant, 

J^ev.  James  Sproat,  D.  D. 

Mr^    Jedediah  Snowden, 

Rev.  John  Smith, 

■jyr      C  Ifabel  Stevenfon, 

'  (^  Van  Solingen, 

f  Peter  Stewart, 

Tv/r      !  Samuel  Tate,  fchoolmafter, 
Mr.  <j  ^    ^ i_  _j 


Philadelphia. 
do. 
do. 
Middle  06lorara,  6  books. 
Philadelphia; 
do. 
do.    18  books. 
Carlille. 
\  T.   Trenchard,  Philadelphia.  6  booksi 

[  Archibald  Tate,  Marfh-Creek,  YorkCounty. 

Capt.  Jofeph  Tatem,  Philadelphia. 

■   fJohnWray,  merchant,  Carliflei 

j  Mofes  Williamfon,    do  do. 

Mr.  <{  Nathanael  Wfeakley,  do.  do. 

I  Hugh  Wilfon,  do.  do. 

L  William  Watts,  Buck's  County. 

Rev.  Archibald  White,  member  of  the  Aflbciate  Prelby^ 

tery  of  Penfylvania. 
Alexander  Wright,  Efq.  Wafliington  County* 

f  John  Wilfon,  merchant. 

I  W.  Young,   Bookfeller,    Philadelphia,  100  books. 
J  John  Young,  Sudent  in  Divinity,  Dickenfon    Col- 
lege, Carlifle. 
Jofeph  Young,  copperfmith,  Carliflci. 
t  John  Yeoman,  merchant. 

Delaware, 
Rev.  Thomas  Ainger,  Wilmington. 

Mt,  John  Darragh,  merchant. 
Vincent  Loockerman,  Efq. 

SotJTH-CAROLINA. 


Mr. 


<! 


Mr. 


"  George  Airs, 

William  Airs. 

Thomas  Barksdale, 

Clement  O.  Browia, 

Samuel  Beach. 

Samuel  Baldwin. 
<  Thomas  Bennet. 

Gal.  Capers, 

Peter  Darr. 

Edward  Darrelt, 

J.   Edwards. 
i^  Lewis  Fogart. 

U  « 


Chrift's-Church  Parilli. 

Chriil's-ChurchParifli. 
do. 


Chrifl's-Churqh  Fariih. 
do. 


S3' 


SUBSCRIBERS    NAMES: 


f  James  Fifiier. 

I  J.  Hart, 

I  William  liamlin, 

t  JaiTies  Hibben, 
Rev.  William  Hollinshcad, 
Hon.  Richard  Hut  ion, 

f  T  homas  Jones, 

I  Ifaac  Stockton  Keith. 
Mr.    \  Jofeph  Legare, 

I  Ifaac  Legare, 

[.Nathan  Legare. 

Mrs.  Ann  Legare. 

Mr.  Stephen  Lawrence. 

Rev.  Daniel  M^Calla,  >/.  M,  Pa/}. 

C  Daniel  M'Calla. 
Mr.    S  rr^,  - , 

C  1  homas  IViartm. 

Rev.  Henry  Parcel,  D.D.  Re&or 

Mr.  Thomas  Player, 

Hon.  David  Ramfay,  M.  D. 

■  Jofeph  Hall  Ramiay. 

William  Scott,  jun. 

Thomas  Scott, 

Thomas  Screven, 

Mr.    <{  Jofiah  Smith. 

George  Smith. 

William  Stevens. 

Jofliua  Toomer,  • 

James  H.  Thomfon,  A»  M. 

f  Elias  Vanderhont* 

I  John  W^ebb. 

Mr.    ]  William  Wilkie. 

I  Rd.   Withers. 

LEliab  Wingood^ 

Georgia. 

Mr     ^  J"^^"  Bankdon, 

^  Samuel  Blackburn,  A.   B, 
Edward  Butler,  Efq. 

f  John  Black, 
Mr.    ]  Peter  Bonds, 

1^  Lewis  Barret 
Nathanael  Coats,  Efq. 
John  Darracoot,  Efq. 
Gideon  Dowle,  Efq. 


St.  Thomas. 
Chrift's-Church. 
do. 

Charlefton^ 
do. 


Chrift's-Church  Pafiih, 
do. 


6f  the  Ind.Ch.Ch.  Ch.?, 


of  St.  Michael's  Charleft. 

ChrifPs-Church  Pariflj. 

Charlefton. 

Chrifl's-Church  Parifh. 
do. 

St.  Thomas. 


ChrifPs-church  Parifli, 
Charlefton,  6  books. 


Wilkes. 
do.  6  books, 
do. 
do. 

do.  6  books. 
do.  6  books. 
do. 

do.  6  books. 
Newport' 


SUBSCRIBERS     NAMES.     331 


Mr     C  John  Hendly,  fen. 

C  John  Hendly,  jun. 
Lyman  Hall,  Efq. 
Rev.  Abiel  Holmes, 
David  Hillhoufe,  Efq. 

f  Howel  Jarrett, 
Mr.    ^  Morice  Kain, 

L  Gracy  Little, 
Major  John  Lindfey, 
Mr.    William  Langham, 
David  Merrewether,   Efq. 


Mr 


C  Richard  Milliar, 

I  Harrifon    Mufgrave, 


James  Marks,   Efq. 

Mr.   Thomas  Ouarterman, 

Capt.  William  Quarterman, 

r  William  Strong, 

I  Frederic  Simms,  merchant, 
Mr.    «j  Ifaac  Staunton, 

I  John  Town  fend 

t  Jacob  Threfh, 
William  Terrill,   Efq. 
Mr.   Thomas  Terrill, 
Tj        C  Sanders  Walker, 

*  C  Jeremiah  Walker, 
Capt.   Richard  Worfham, 
James  Williams,  Efq.  attorney, 
Mr.  John  Wingfield,  jun. 


Wilkes, 

,  6  books. 

do. 

6  books. 

Savannah. 

Midway. 

Wilkes 

,  6  books. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

4  books. 

do. 

6  books. 

do. 

6  books. 

do. 

4  books. 

do. 

6  books. 

do. 

6  books. 

Newport. 

do. 

Wilkes, 

4  books. 

do. 

6  books. 

do. 

6  books* 

do. 

do. 

2  books. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

6  books. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

6  books. 


ERRATA. 

pjge  22,  Un5  9,  ihretened,  read  threatened. 

f  £gc  24.  lint'  9,  reafoning,  read  remark. 

Page  26,  line  32,  than,  read  then, 

Pcjgc  37,  I'nc  27',  difpifed,  read  defpifed. 

P.'jge  39,  lire  5S,  read,  o/"  the  infinite,  &c. 

Page  41,  line  27,  read  meritorious. 

Page  52,  line  20,  where,  read  were. 

Page  53,  in  the  margin,  Tef.  read  Thef, 

Page  62,  line  29,  draw,  read  drawn. 

Page  63,  line  22,  pomote,  read  promOtCc 

Page  105,  lin^  33,   IL  read  2. 

Piige  132,  ulc.  fervent,  re^id  fervent. 

Page  170,  line  36,  o  re^d  of. 

Pege  171,  line  17,  ?    read    ;. 

Page  234,  line  12,  of,  resd  or. 

Page 235,  line  33,  lepeatecly,  read  greatly. 

Page  238,  line  33,  ciele  they. 

Pa2e250,  line  33,  forever,  read  for  ever; 

Page  274,  line  7,  read  ^Hinnom. 
Several  lefs  important  errata,  the  corredlion  of  which  will  natu- 
rally Occur  to  the  reader,  appealed  not  to   require  a  place  in  this 
table. 


PRINTING 

AND 

BOOK-BINDING, 

In  their  various  Branches  are  neatly  executed  by 

ABEL  MORSE,   in    State-Street,    New-Haven  : 

WHO    HAS   FOR   SALE, 

DOCTOR  Gordon's  Hiftory  of  the  American  War, 
The  CongrefTional  Regifter, 

An  Eflay  on  Punctuation, 

Pike's  Arithmetic,   Gib  on  the  Covenants. 

Newton's  Rehgious  Letters,   Scott's  Leffons  in  Elocution, 

Hiftory  of  Sanford  and  Merton,  Efop's  Fables, 

Fables  for  the  Ladies,  Paradife-Lofl, 

Oeconomy  of  human  Life,  Father's  Legacy, 

Pfalm  Books,  Watts'  and  Hart's  Hymns, 

The  Triumphs  ©f  Temper, 

Search  after  Happinefs,  a  paftoral  Drama,  as  it  was  per- 
formed by  fome  young  Ladies  in  Briftol, 

Ela  :  or  the  Delufions  of  the  Heart, 

The  complete  Letter  Writer, 

The  Hiilory  of  Gibraltar, 

TheMeffiah, 

Peter  Pindar. 

Spelling-Books  of  different  kinds, 

A  great  variety  of  Children's  Books,  with 

A  large  Affortment  of  Superfine  imported  Writing  Paper^ 

Accompt  Books  of  alT  kinds. 

Blank  books  and  Blarjks  of  every  kind, 

A  variety  of  Latin  Books,  &c. 

y///o,    now  preparing  for  the  Prefsy 

The  Hiftory  of  the  United  States  in  America,  from  the 
time  of  their  firf:  fettlement  by  the  Englilh,  to  the  year 
1790,  in  five  volumes,  by  a  Citizen  of  Philadelphia. 

A  Compendium  of  American  Geography,  with  an  Ap- 
pendix, containing  a  concife  geographical  defcnption  of 
ail  other  parts  of  the  globe  : — Defigned  particularly  for 
the  ufe  of  fchools  in  the  United  States,  and  well  adapt- 
ed to  the  capacities  of  youth  ;  compiled  by  a  Citizen  of 
Philadelphia,  who  has  an  extenfive  knowledge  in   geo- 


graphical  fcience,  and  is  folicitous  to  facilitate  the  im- 
provement of  youth. 
Alfo,  a  School  Reading-Book,  in  two  parts  ;  the  firft 
part  containing  reading  leiTons  methodized  for  claffes  ; 
and  the  fecond  part  a  collection  of  the  moft  eminent  de- 
clamatory pieces ;  compiled  by  an  Inftruclor  of  eminence. 

N.  B.  Said  Morse  drefTes  his  own  leather,  attends  to 
every  part  of  his  bnfmcfs  himfelf,  is  emulous  to  excel  in 
his  profelfion,  and  the  public  may  depend  upon  being  fer- 
ved  by  him  with  the  utmoil  punftuahty. Country  pro- 
duce, or  clean  Cotton  and  Linen  Rags  and  Sheeps  Pelts 
will  be  taken  in  payment  for  any  of  the  above  Articles. 


i 


■J 


s. 


f^^'im^:- 


m:^^-'^' 


■M^'' 


iV'r,- 


'%i 


7':-;.-.- -iR-;-:  ■«'^/ 


^« 


'■i.%-i 


m 


■'if; 


''if&^, 


fi'4^tA 


^\L. 


'*^'^ 


mm 


